The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.birla International P.ltd
High Court
10 Dec 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.birla International P.ltd
Date of order
10 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.birla International P.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: At the same time we have also to consider the adverse effect on the Revenue if these Appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3231 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1759 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax....Appellant
Versus
M/s.Birla International P.Ltd...Respondent
Mr.
P.C.
P.C.
.There is a delay of 102 days in preferring the Appeal. Earlier considering the administrative difficulties of the Department we were condoning delay upto 200 days on showing cause bearing in mind the law declared by the Supreme Court that Government should be shown some latitude. Since December, 2005 the files are no longer sent to the Law Ministry and the Appeals have to be drafted in Mumbai itself. There is, therefore, no reason as to why the same latitude should now be shown to condone such long delay in preferring the Appeal if otherwise there is no sufficient
cause. This exercise was also partly resorted to, considering that over one thousand and five hundred Notice of Motions were pending and in respect of Appeals right from 2001 onwards.
2.We are aware that on the one hand we have to balance the right of the assessee in whose favour a right accrues. At the same time we have also to consider the adverse effect
on the Revenue if these Appeals are dismissed. The figure
collected by this Court upto the year 2007 would show that
practically in every Appeal (about 2700 Appeals) there is a
Motion for condonation of delay. The main reasons that we
find are (a) the failure by the Officers of Revenue to
process the files in time, (b) the time taken to draft the
Appeals including by Advocates of the Department and (c)
non-availability of stamp papers. The period for filing the
appeal is 120 days and this is known to the Revenue
Officials.
3.
In so far as Officers of the Department, knowing that
the time for appeal is 120 days from receipt of order of
ITAT there is no reason why the file should not be processed
within sixty days. In so far as delay by Advocates, in some
cases upto six months for drafting appeal memos, the same is
inexcusable, on the touch stone of sufficient cause. In so
far as stamp papers are concerned, taking the number of
appeals filed each year, adequate steps should be taken to
sanction the moneys for filing appeals in time. We make it
clear that from 2008 onwards the Revenue, if they file
applications for condonation of delay, will have to explain
each days delay.
4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the cause shown the delay of 202 days is condoned
subject to the Appellants paying to the Respondents costs
quantified at Rs.2,500/-. The said costs to be recovered
from the officers responsible for the delay. We see no
reason why the State should be burdened with the costs. The
receipt of payment of costs to be filed in the Appeal
proceedings within four weeks from today. Motion made
absolute accordingly. Office to register the appeal.
.
It is essential that these observations are complied
with and Officers responsible for delay in preferring
Appeals, must be held accountable. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes
for necessary action.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.