COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. INDIA SEEDS HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal, who have heard this case, including those who first heard it, for the reasons stated in the order, we allow the assessee's appeal, pro tanto."

(2.) THE order shows that the Revenue was represented by Shri S.R. Malik, Departmental Representative. We have seen the file maintained by the Tribunal and there is nothing to indicate that this order was reserved and pronounced later. In any case, since the order is of hardly four lines, it is very unlikely that it would have been reserved and pronounced later the appeal was barred by limitation but learned counsel for the Revenue contended that a copy of the order of the Tribunal was never received by the Revenue till an application for certified copy was made and a copy was delivered on application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation. it is not on record. The Registry should now place the application on record. In any case, a reply was filed to the application by the Revenue and a rejoinder has also been filed, both of which are on record. received by the IT Department.

(3.) INSOFAR as the first contention is concerned, we have already noticed that the order is an extremely short order of hardly four lines and it records the presence of the Departmental Representative. There is nothing on the file maintained and the order was passed on the same date. Under these circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of learned particularly the Departmental Representative. Department. Since the order was pronounced in the presence of the Departmental Representative, if he chooses not to inform the IT Department about the proceedings and the Department chooses not to ask its Departmental Representative about what has happened in the case, the Department has only itself to blame. received by the Chief CIT or the CIT concerned.