ANIL SONI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the abovementioned writ petitions as they raise common questions of law and facts. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the points raised in these writ petitions stand squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1977) 110 ITR 217and the petitions be allowed in the same terms. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in 5. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi's case (supra) the assessee had approached this Court under articles 103 and 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir expeditiously whereas the present writ petitions have been filed after a great delay which in some cases runs 9 to 10 years. He further submits that in view of this inordinate delay the petitions should not be entertained and no relief should be granted to the petitioners.

(2.) In exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and articles 103 and 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, laches is one of the circumstances which Court takes into account. However, laches is not absolute bar if the Court is otherwise satisfied with the justness of the petitioner's claim that relief can be granted to a petitioner who approaches the Court even somewhat belatedly.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court having already pronounced upon the scope and ambit of sections 143 and 144 of the income tax Act, 1961, delay should not stand in the way of the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of the aforementioned case. No costs.