DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI ARUN NAGAR

Facts

The Revenue, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Jaipur, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the ITAT, Jaipur, for Assessment Year 2012-13. A coordinate bench of the High Court directed the appeal to be dismissed if defects pointed out by the Registry were not cured within three weeks. As the defects remained uncured, the Registrar dismissed the appeal on 03.04.2024. The Revenue filed a restoration application seeking to recall this order, attributing the failure to cure defects to an inadvertent lapse by their filing clerk/office. The application also stated that while the appeal might not survive on merits due to a low monetary limit, the department wished to restore it for a clean withdrawal.

Held

The High Court allowed the application for restoration of the appeal. The Court noted the Revenue's candid admission in the restoration application that the appeal did not survive on merits due to the low monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Consequently, despite restoring the appeal to its original status for hearing, the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself on the ground that it did not survive due to the low monetary limit prescribed under the CBDT norms. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should recall its order dated 03.04.2024, which dismissed the Income Tax Appeal No. 01/2024, and restore the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits, considering the Revenue's submission of an inadvertent and bona fide lapse in curing defects. Assessee's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the delay in curing defects was bona fide and unintentional, attributable to an office clerk's irregularities. They contended that expeditious steps were taken upon noticing the defects and that it was in the interest of justice to condone the delay and allow the restoration application. They also stated that substantial questions of law were involved, requiring adjudication on merits. Furthermore, they acknowledged that the appeal might not survive on merits due to the low monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT but sought restoration for a clean withdrawal. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the Revenue in opposition to the restoration application.