A L MEHTA Vs. NIIT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the Appellant prays for the condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the Appeal. The contents of the application read thus:-

(2.) THAT the petitioner had applied for a copy of the aforesaid order on 14.10.2009 on an urgent basis, which could be made ready only on 29.10.2009, as the file during the interim period was in the Court. THAT there has been a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, for certain unavoidable reasons, including the time taken by the advocate to draft the petition and the interim vacation in the Court. Prayer In the above circumstances, it is prayed that the delay of 39 days may please be condoned. 2. As is to be expected, the Respondent has strongly opposed the condonation of delay and has justifiably stated that no grounds or sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the application in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. What ought to have been stated in the application itself has, however, been mentioned in the Rejoinder. The Appellant pleads that he was awaiting the outcome of seven Writ Petitions filed by the Respondent seeking the quashing of proceedings initiated against it by the Income Tax Authorities. The Appellant has argued that the delay was caused because of the pendency of these Writ Petitions, which were eventually disposed of vide Orders dated 11.12.2009. The Income Tax Authorities were directed by the Writ Court to pass fresh orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We see no causal relationship between these two happenings.

(3.) HAVING perused the opinion of the Honble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements, we are persuaded to condone the delay, largely because it is of a relatively short period of 39 days only and no malafides are attributable to the Appellant.