Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 81/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Mr.Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. . . . versus . . . WIMCO SEEDLING LTD ..... Respondent . Through: Ms.Kavita Jha and Mr.Somnath Shukla, . Advocates. . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER . . . O R D E R . 03.02.2012 . . . This is an appeal preferred by the revenue in respect of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal? for short) dated 30.03.2007. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal is filed in the year 2012 on the ostensible ground that the certified copy of the order was received by the Department on 19.01.2012. . We may only note that a batch of appeals was disposed of by us being ITA Nos.1367/2008, 1368/2008 and 1391/2008 vide judgment dated 12.12.2011. It is in this judgment that we had noticed that no appeal had been filed qua the judgment of the Tribunal pertaining to the aforementioned assessment year 1994-95. We had, in fact, directed in our order dated 12.12.2011, that a copy of our order be placed before the Chairman, CBDT, who was requested to get an enquiry conducted into the delay caused in obtaining a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1994-95. The said batch of matters is also placed before us today. A report has been submitted by the revenue in respect of the enquiry sought for by us vide our order dated 12.12.2011. . ITA No.81/2012 Page 1 of 2 . A perusal of the report shows that the revenue was aware of the order dated 30.03.2007, at least by 13.06.2007 when an application had been moved by the assessee for refund; after giving effect to the Tribunal?s order. With the said application, the assessee had enclosed a copy of the Tribunal?s order dated 30.03.2007. Despite, knowledge of the impugned order, the appeal has been filed in the year 2012. . Apart from this, we may also notice that the revenue on its own states that the tax effect in the matter is only Rs.6,46,000/-. In the . aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed not only on the ground that the tax effect is below Rs.10 lakhs, but also on the ground of gross delay. . It is ordered accordingly. . . . . . . . SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J . . . . . RAJIV SHAKDHER, J . FEBRUARY 03, 2012/dm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No.81/2012 Page 2 of 2 . . . . . . . . .