COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHANKARLAL VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 97/2002 and RA 96/2002 This is an application by the Revenue under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking condensation of delay of 'about 12 months' in filing the review application against the order passed by this Court on 10th April, 2001, in ITA No. 1/2000. By the impugned order, following the decision of this Court in ITC No. 35/1999, Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), was not entertained.

(2.) IN the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the CIT, Delhi -VII, New Delhi, it is stated that delay in filing the review application was on account of the fact that the decision to file SLP/review application had to be taken in consultation with multiple authorities, namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short CBDT) or the Ministry of Law, etc. which was a time -consuming process. A list of dates and events filed with the application reads as follows: S. Date EventsNo.1. 10 -4 -2001 Order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Courtin ITA No. 65/2000.2. 7 -5 -2001 Certified copy of order received bythe Standing Counsel.3. 28 -5 -2001 Order received in the office of theconcerned CCIT.4. 18 -7 -2001 The CIT sent the file to the CBDT forits opinion as regards filing of SLP.5. 29 -10 -2001 Opinion of the Law Ministry dt. 15th Oct., 2001 received in the office ofthe CCIT (Admn.). Solicitor General opined that instead of filing SLP review petition be filed.6. Restructuring of the Departmentand change in the jurisdiction of the AO etc.7. 13 -11 -2001 Matter referred to the Standing Counsel in view of the opinion of the Ministryof Law.8. 27 -3 -2002 Sending the file to another StandingCounsel after receiving the same from the first one.9. 23 -4 -2002 File received back from the second Standing Counsel.10. 30 -4 -2002 Sending the file to yet another Standing Counsel.11. 1 -6 -2002 to Summer vacation of the High Court.7 -7 -200212. 12 -7 -2002 Filing of the review petition.The application is resisted by the respondent -assessed.

(3.) RELYING on the decision of the apex Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. : 2002(143)ELT249(SC) . Mr. Pandey has vehemently submitted that since the processing of the file from one Ministry to another and then from one standing counsel to another took a considerable time, causing the delay, the Court may take a pragmatic view in the matter and condone the delay. Reliance is also placed on another decision of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. : (1987)ILLJ500SC .