Allahabad High Court
Dr. Shashi Kant Garg vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar ... on 6 August, 2010
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Rajes Kumar
Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 534 of 2002 Petitioner :- Dr. Shashi Kant Garg Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, M.Nagar & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- S.K.Garg,R.S.Agrawal,Sidharth Pathak Respondent Counsel :- S.S.C.,A.N.Mahajan,Ashok Kumar,Bharat Ji Agrawal,C.S.Singh,G.Krishna,P.Krishna,S.Chopra Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Review Application No. 272467 of 2007.
An application has been filed on 13.11.2007 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffar Nagar seeking review of our order dated 10.8.2005. The application has been reported beyond time by two years 65 days. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, supported by an affidavit, has also been filed. The delay condonation application refers to the fact stated in the accompanying affidavit for condonation of delay. A composite affidavit has been filed both in review application and also in delay condonation application. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit relate to the reasons for condonation of delay, which is reproduced below:
"That the delay in filing this review petition occurred due to the time taken in seeking permission of the higher Departmental authorities in granting permission to file the review petition. Since earlier, the Department was advised to file an S.L.P. in the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas it was later on decided to submit a Review petition in the Hon'ble High Court itself.
That the delay was not deliberate or intentional but was on account of the internal Departmental decision making process and hence the delay may be kindly condoned in filing this Review petition, which was due to entirely justifiable reasons and hence there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay."
From the reading of the aforesaid paragraphs and the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the reason mentioned does not warrant any condonation of delay. It is highly improbable and cannot be believed that the Commissioner took two years' time to grant permission to file review petition. The application, seeking condonation of delay, is, therefore, rejected. Sine the application for condonation of delay having been rejected, the review application also stands rejected.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010 OP