2015 (5) TMI 793

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y step thereafter. On 5th March, 2010 the matter was in the list. The appellant was not represented. The matter was adjourned sine die. It was, however, recorded that the acknowledgement due card had not come back. On what basis the aforesaid information was recorded in the order dated 5th March, 2010 is not clear because it does not appear that anyone appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appellant admittedly did not take any step. There is no Affidavit-of-Service before us to show that any service was sought to be effected soon after the appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed. If nothing was sought to be served, the acknowledgement card could not have been awaited. The matter thereafter was listed on 9th April....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... view of the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. We, thus, dismiss the appeal on that ground alone." Mr. P. Dudhoria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-revenue submitted that Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir (Tax Appeal No.2213 of 2010 dated 12th September, 2012) opined that the earlier view expressed by a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Durgaprosad Khatod holding that the instructions of 2011 would also apply to pending appeals required reconsideration and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior Advocate volunteered his services and drew our attention to the views expressed by the larger Bench wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled that subsequent events can be taken note of by the Court both for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and for the purpose of shortening the litigation. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarh vs. The Motor & General Traders reported in (1975) 1 SCC 770, wherein the following views were expressed:- "We feel the submissions are devoid of substance. First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-à-vis circumstances which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....another accommodation by the landlord, during pendency of the case, has as the High Court twice pointed out, a material bearing on the right to evict in view of the inhibition written into section 10(3) (iii) itself. We are not disposed of disturb this approach in law or finding of fact". In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., reported in (2006) 12 SCC 448, a contention was raised on behalf of the assessee that a beneficial circular in excise matters has to be applied retrospectively and an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. The aforesaid contention appears to have been accepted by the Apex Court expressly or impliedly by the following views appearing in paragraph-15 of the ....