COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUDHIR CHOUDHRIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice to show cause why the appeals be not admitted returnable on 10th September, 2002, was issued by a Division Bench of this Court in all the above appeals vide order dated 20th May, 2002. In response to it the respondent-assessee appeared and took an objection in its submission that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had passed an order in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89 which has not been challenged" by the Department and as such all subsequent appeals would have to be dismissed or adversely affected. The pendency of this matter became a matter of concern for the Court as it was stated at the Bar in different cases including the above appeals, that orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are not served upon the Department for years together, while on the other hand the contention of the Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Appellate tribunal was that the orders are duly communicated or served upon the authorities but sometimes they decline to accept the same and the delay is not attributable to the Registrar of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Faced with these circumstances, the Court had passed the following order on 11th January, 2005:-

(2.) Thereafter, on 24th February, 2005 again the following order was made:-

(3.) An affidavit on behalf of the Registrar of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was filed which was taken on record. However, the said affidavit did not deal with the pronouncement of final orders by the Tribunal after listing them for pronouncement. Learned Counsel appearing for the Tribunal contended that keeping in view the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is not obligatory upon the Appellate Tribunal to pronounce final orders upon listing. In fact, the relevant provisions of law require the authorities to communicate the order to the parties and the Tribunal has been complying with the directive contained in Rule 35 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In other words, there is no statutory obligation upon the Tribunal to pronounce the judgments during working hours and after showing them in the cause list of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not been following such a practice and does not wish to start the same being not a mandate of law. Arguments at some length were addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellate Tribunal in this regard.