INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEVUBEN @ JAMNABEN JIVRAJBHAI MOVALIAYA

PDF · subscribers
CA/242/2019HC GujaratGJHC24010154201901 July 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 164 days in preferring the Restoration Application. The Court found that the explanation provided for the delay, stating it was due to oversight and the order coming to their notice late, was acceptable. The Court reasoned that the delay was not a deliberate omission. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the Rule was made absolute. The operative direction was to condone the delay and proceed with the Restoration Application. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department (applicant) is seeking condonation of delay in filing a Restoration Application. The Department had filed a Review Application against an order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 14244 of 2017. This earlier order had directed the Income Tax authorities to refund Rs. 68,672/- to each of the petitioners (assessees). The Review Application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.07.2018. The present application is for condoning a delay of 164 days in filing the Restoration Application, which was filed after the Review Application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 164 days in filing the Restoration Application, which was filed after the Review Application was dismissed for want of prosecution? (Question of fact and law) Assessee's Contention: The delay occurred because the order dated 17.07.2018 dismissing the Review Application for want of prosecution only came to the applicant's notice when it was served by the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. The delay was due to oversight and not a deliberate omission. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/CA/242/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 242 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14244 of 2017 ========================================================== INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus DEVUBEN @ JAMNABEN JIVRAJBHAI MOVALIAYA ========================================================== Appearance: M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,9 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 01/07/2022

ORAL ORDER This Court allowed Special Civil Application No. 14244 of 2017 filed by the petitioner - assesse by order dated 12.12.2017, whereby the respondent – Income Tax authorities were directed to refund the wrongly deducted amount of Rs. 68,672/- to each of the petitioners. The Income Tax authorities were directed to deposit the said amount before the Reference Court and to disburse the amount.

2.

Against the said judgment and order, the Income Tax department preferred a Review Application. The Review Application was dismissed for want of prosecution as per order dated 17.07.2018. The applicant - appellant filed Restoration Application. In filing the Restoration Application, delay of 164 days has taken place. Therefore the present application. C/CA/242/2019 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022

3.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Karan Singhania for M. R. Bhatt & Co. for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth for the respondent No. 1 to 8. 4. It appears that, by virtue of order dated 17.07.2018, the Miscellaneous Civil Application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, delay in filing Restoration Application was sought to be explained by the applicant – Department stating that the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2018 came to the notice only when it was served upon the applicant No. 1 by the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh. It was submitted that thereafter the Restoration Application was filed in which they were heard. It was submitted that the delay was due to oversight and there was no deliberate omission.

5.

In the totality of facts delay to the extent of 164 days is said to be properly explained. Sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 164 days in preferring Restoration Application. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) SHRIJIT PILLAI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →