SEWAK RAM GABRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
MCC/222/2015HC Madhya PradeshMPHC03010260201515 June 20152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that sufficient cause was made out to condone the delay in filing the MCC for restoration. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons stated in the application and, keeping in view the principle laid down in Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal & Another (AIR 1981 SC 1400), which states that a litigant should not suffer due to the mistake of their counsel or office, condoned the delay. Consequently, the MCC for restoration was allowed. Income Tax Appeal No. 45/2013 was restored to its original number, subject to the condition that the applicant cures the defaults raised by the office within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Tribunal clarified that failure to comply with this direction would disentitle the applicant to the benefit of the order. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sewak Ram Gabra, filed an application (MCC No. 222/2015) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing a Miscellaneous Civil Case (MCC) for the restoration of Income Tax Appeal No. 45/2013. The appeal had been dismissed due to non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 09/01/2014, which directed the applicant to cure office-raised defaults within a specified period. The Income Tax Officer, Gwalior, was the respondent. The Tribunal considered the application for condonation of delay and the subsequent petition for restoration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the MCC for restoration of Income Tax Appeal No. 45/2013, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether Income Tax Appeal No. 45/2013 should be restored to its original number? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the MCC was due to reasons that constitute sufficient cause, and the litigant should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel or office. The assessee relied on the principle laid down in Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal & Another (AIR 1981 SC 1400). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 MCC No. 222/2015

[Sewak Ram Gabra Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gwalior] 15/06/2015

Shri Pavan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Saurabh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.2348/2015, applicant's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing this MCC for restoration of Income Tax Appeal No.45/2013, which has been dismissed on account of non- compliance of peremptory order dated 09/01/2014, directing the applicant to cure the default raised by the office within the prescribed period. Having heard the counsel, perused the IA, for the reasons stated in it, keeping in view the principle laid down in the matter of Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal & Another reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400, that the litigant should not suffer because of mistake of his counsel or his office, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the aforesaid alleged delay in filing this MCC. Consequently, by allowing the IA, the same is hereby condoned. Pursuant to the aforesaid, this petition for restoration of aforesaid Income Tax Appeal, is taken up for consideration.

For the reasons on which the aforesaid IA is allowed on the same reason and cause, this petition is also allowed and subject to compliance of peremptory order dated 09/01/2014 2 to cure the default raised by the Office within further fifteen days from today, the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal No.45/2013, is hereby restored to its original number, with a direction to the office to place it before the appropriate Bench. It is made clear that if the aforesaid direction of this order is not complied with within the prescribed period, then the applicant shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. This MCC stands disposed of accordingly. A typed copy of this order be kept with the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal.

(U. C. Maheshwari)

(M. C. Garg) Judge Judge MKB

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →