Supreme Court - Daily Orders
C.I.T.,Kanpur,U.P. vs Raj Kumar Arora on 10 February, 2014
0
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).26212/2013
(From the judgement and order dated 25/04/2011 in ITA No.125/2010 of The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
C.I.T.,KANPUR,U.P. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR ARORA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and prayer for interim relief and
office report ))
Date: 10/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv.
Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Gupta,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2013, the petitioner - Revenue has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Notice was issued to the respondent on that day on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petition.
2. The respondent has been served with the notice and he is represented by Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Advocate.
3. Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No..... [CC 2097/2013] filed by the Revenue against the present assessee - respondent pertaining to earlier assessment year has been dismissed on the ground of delay on 04.03.2013. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that, as a matter of fact, the impugned order in the present matter relies upon the order which was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No..... [CC 2097/2013].
4. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, submits that once this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as a penalty, the delay in filing the special leave petition may be treated as condoned and it is not open to the respondent to raise a plea of limitation.
5. The argument of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, is noted to be rejected. The direction to deposit Rs. 50,000/- was not by way of penalty as argued by the learned senior counsel.
6. The order dated 16.08.2013 is self-explanatory and reads as follows :-
"There is delay of 509 days in filing this special leave petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar matters are pending before this Court. However, to our query, learned counsel fairly submitted that in those matters the delay was not more than 252 days. In the instant special leave petition, we find that delay is almost double.
Subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards costs within four weeks from today, let notice be issued to the respondent on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petition returnable in eight weeks therefrom.
Deposit of cost is condition precedent for issuance of notice to the respondent.
Upon deposit, the Registry shall invest the same in a fixed deposit initially for a period of three months."
7. From the perusal of above order, it is clear that learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon few other matters to persuade the Court to issue notice. But when question was put to him, he agreed on that day that delay in those matters was not more than 252 days. Although Special Leave Petition (Civil) No..... [CC 2097/2013] filed by the Revenue was dismissed by this Court on 04.03.2013, i.e., more than five months before the present matter was taken up on 16.08.2013, this Court was not informed that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No..... [CC 2097/2013] against the same assessee relating to the earlier assessment year has already been dismissed by this Court. Had this information been given by the Revenue, obviously notice would not have been issued.
8. The present case suffers from delay of 509 days in filing special leave petition, while the other special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the same assessee being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No..... [CC 2097/2013] suffered from delay of 514 days. Nothing has been pointed out to us by the learned senior counsel for the Revenue that distinguishes the two matters on the question of sufficiency of cause (or lack of it). There is no justification to treat the present special leave petition different from the special leave petition [being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.....[CC 2097/2013] which has been already dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 04.03.2013.
9. Special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
10. The cost of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the Revenue may be refunded with accrued interest, if any.
|(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) | |Court Master | |Court Master |