DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MOHAMED SARIF S/O SH. HAJI GULAB

Facts

The Revenue, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the ITAT, Jaipur, for Assessment Year 2015-16. A coordinate division bench of the High Court directed that the appeal would stand dismissed if defects pointed out by the Registry were not cured within three weeks. As the defects remained uncured, the Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the appeal on 09.07.2024. The Revenue filed a restoration application seeking to recall this order and restore the appeal, attributing the failure to cure defects to an inadvertent lapse by their filing clerk/office. The delay in filing the restoration application was 434 days.

Held

The High Court allowed the prayer for restoration of the appeal. The Court noted the applicant-Revenue's submission that the appeal did not survive on merits due to the low monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, but that the department desired the matter to be restored for a clean withdrawal. In light of this submission, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not survive due to the low monetary limit prescribed under the CBDT norms. The application for restoration was disposed of, and the appeal was restored to its original status for hearing, only to be subsequently dismissed on the stated ground.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 434 days in filing the restoration application should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the applicant-Revenue? Assessee's Contention: The Revenue argued that the delay was unintentional and bona fide, attributable to irregularities committed by their office clerk in curing defects. They contended that expeditious steps were taken upon noticing the irregularities 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, and that the delay was due to adherence to official procedure and approval. The Revenue further noted that while the appeal might not survive on merits due to the low monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, they wished for the matter to be restored for a clean withdrawal. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.