Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Circel (One) Gwalior

PDF · subscribers
MCC/223/2015HC Madhya Pradesh15 June 2015Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE U.C. MAHESHWARI2 pages
For Petitioner: Pawan Kumar DwivediFor Respondent: Advocate General
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the MCC for restoration. The Tribunal was satisfied that sufficient cause was made out for the delay, referencing the principle from Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal & Another (AIR 1981 SC 1400) that a litigant should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel or office. Consequently, the MCC for restoration was allowed. Income Tax Appeal No. 01/2014 was restored to its original number, subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the peremptory order dated 28-01-2014 by curing the office-raised defaults within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Tribunal made it clear that failure to comply with this condition would disentitle the applicant to the benefit of this order. The appeal was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCC) No. 223/2015 filed by Ramesh Kumar Gupta (the applicant) against the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle -I, Gwalior (the respondent). The applicant sought restoration of Income Tax Appeal No. 01/2014, which had been dismissed due to non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 28-01-2014. This order directed the applicant to cure office-raised defaults within a specified period. The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the MCC. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides on this application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCC) for restoration of Income Tax Appeal No. 01/2014 should be condoned, considering the applicant's submission of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Assessee's Contention: The applicant argued that the delay was attributable to the mistake of their counsel or office and that the litigant should not suffer for such errors. They 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 on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 MCC No. 223/2015

[Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Circle -I, Gwalior] 15/06/2015

Shri Pavan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Saurabh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on IA No.2351/2015, 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.01/2014, which has been dismissed on account of non- compliance of peremptory order dated 28-01-2014, 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 2 subject to compliance of peremptory order dated 28-01-2014 to cure the default raised by the Office within further fifteen days from today, the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal No.01/2014, 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 →