2026 (3) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an, Advs. JUDGMENT PER DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. A writ petition with 144 pages, including copies of the previous writ petition and various other documents, has been filed for a small rather innocuous relief, that the Tribunal be directed to expeditiously decide petitioner's appeal. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner placed additional documents on record running into 316 pages; the respondents have also filed several documents running into 257 pages, to oppose the relief sought by the petitioner. 3. While deprecating the practice of the counsel from both the sides of unnecessarily burdening the dockets, which consume substantial time of the Court so also the energy, in a case where the grievances which has been canvassed by the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r again for consideration/clarification on 19.01.2026 and adjourned the matter sine-die, simply because in ITA No. 30/2025, on 04.12.2025 this Court had framed the following questions, while admitting said appeal:- "(i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was right in quashing the order passed by PCIT (Central)-3 u/s 112A r.w.s. 12AA & 12AB(4) cancelling the registration of assessee trust by holding that the PCIT (Central) did not have jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order which vested solely with PCIT (Exemptions)? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT(Central) would have the powers to pass an order cancelling registration, since the jurisdiction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... thirty days. 10. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special Counsel for the Department on the other hand, argued that the period prescribed under Rule 34(5)(c) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is directory and not mandatory, as has been held by this Court in various judgment. 11. He also argued that though it may be true that in another case, namely Ram Saran (supra), the Tribunal has allowed the appeal but if the facts are into consideration, it can be seen that said appeal was allowed on 12.11.2025, whereas this Court has admitted the appeal and framed question of law only on 04.12.2025. 12. Mr. Zoheb Hossain tried to touch upon the merits of the case and expressed a concern that the petitioner has approached this Court time....