2014 (11) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Motion. (b) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 22nd September, 2011 and be pleased to extend the time to remove the office objection." 3. It is common ground that the Revenue filed an Appeal in this Court challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20th December, 2007. That was in relation to the assessment year 1996-97. This Appeal of the Revenue was filed on 3rd July, 2008. 4. The Registry endorsed two objections on the Memo of Appeal and which are that the Appeal is barred by limitation. The other objection is not so much relevant for our purpose. 5. Finding that at the relevant time there was no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 particularly in section 260A, on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.) we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed." 6. As a result of this, the Appeal came to be dismissed. It appears from the record that the Revenue sought review of this order by filing a Review Petition. In the Review Petition, the Revenue urged that the Appeal was barred by 51 days. The Revenue prayed that the order passed by the Division Bench on 23rd July, 2009 be recalled and the Revenue be permitted to seek condonation of delay in filing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt Thakker appearing on behalf of the Assessee. We have perused the affidavit in support of this Notice of Motion and in which we find that the only reason given in para 3 is as under: "I say that Review Petitioner had filed the above Review against the order dated 23.07.2009 dismissing the appeal of the Review Petitioner. I say that there was a delay in filing the Review; however, the notice of motion was not filed seeking condonation of delay. As a result of which, the objections raised by the Dept regarding the delay could not be removed. I say that a separate Notice of Motion is being filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I say that while checking up the status of the Review on interest on 30.04.2012 it was found tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at this is a fit case to seek review of the order passed by this Court dismissing the Appeal, as barred by limitation. It filed a Review Petition and which was hopelessly time barred. Thus, a time barred Appeal was sought to be restored to file of this Court seeking Review of the earlier order, but the Application in that behalf was also time barred and by more than two years. It is found that the Revenue was aware that the Review Petition has been dismissed by the conditional order of 22nd September, 2011, on 10th October, 2011 but it woke up much later and sought to restore this Review Petition. That it could not have restored unless the order of the Registry was set aside. In that also the delay occurred and of 276 days. 12. It is in th....