Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Crompton Greaves Ltd., Mumbai vs Cit - 6 & Dcit Cir. - 6(2), Mumbai on 11 May, 2018 cites

G Shoe Export, Mumbai vs Acit 25(1), Mumbai on 24 January, 2018

4. We have considered rival contention and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that hearing in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2014 was held on 29.10.2015 for AY 2007-08 and the order was pronounced by tribunal on 01.02.2016 beyond the period of 90 days from the conclusion of the hearing. The recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of G. Shoe Exports v. ACIT (supra) which has elaborately dealt with this issue of pronouncement of order beyond 90 days is reproduced here under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Anil Rai vs State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2001

7. From the above, we find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case referred above has held that unexplained delay in pronouncement of the order renders it vulnerable. It was held that such judgments were bad in law and were to be set aside. It was expounded that justice should not only be done, but should appear to have been done and that justice delayed is justice denied. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred to Hon'ble Apex Court decision where serious note was taken of the prejudice caused to the litigant due to delay in delivery or pronouncement of the judgment for the reasons not attributable either with the litigant or to the state or to the legal profession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 382 - K T Thomas - Full Document

M/S Supraja'S Sandy Lane Bar & ... vs The Acit., Central Circle - 2,, ... on 29 June, 2017

(i) The order of the Tribunal while rejecting the rectification application does not dispute the fact that the order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act was passed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of its hearing on 22nd September, 2015. However, it records that administrative clearance had been taken to pass such an order beyond the period of 90 days. We are at a loss to understand what is meant by 'administrative clearance' and the basis for the same. Besides when, how and from whom the administrative clearance was received, are all questions still at large. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for all the respondents, including the Registry of the Tribunal is unable to shed any light on the same. Moreover, we are unable to comprehend the meaning of 'Administrative clearance' in the face of Rule 34 (5)(c) read with Rule 34(8) of the Tribunal Rules. It is clear that the above provisions mandate the Tribunal to pronounce its order at the very latest on or before the 90th day, after the conclusion of the hearing. In fact, this Court in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant (supra) after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court directed the President of the Tribunal to frame guidelines to prevent delay in delivery of orders/judgments. It also directed all the revisional and appellate authorities (including Tribunal) under the Act to decide the matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. This is further compounded by the fact that the submission of the petitioner in respect of the entire issue being covered by orders of coordinate benches was according to the petitioner, lost sight of while passing the order dated 3rd February, 2016.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Assistant Commnr., Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd on 15 September, 2008

10. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the orders have to be passed in variably within three months of the completion of hearing of the case. In this case, admittedly the order was passed beyond three months. No reason whatsoever for the delay has been recorded. As held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court above, such delay is incurable and even administrative clearance cannot cure the same. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227/173 Taxman 322, any order of the tribunal without considering the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement even if not bought to the notice of the tribunal, results in the order of the tribunal being liable for rectification upon filing of an application under section 254(2) of the Act for containing mistake apparent from the record. Admittedly, in this case, the impugned common tribunal orders are not in accordance with the above two jurisdictional High Court's decision which clearly mandate that the order of the tribunal should be pronounced within a period of three months of the hearing of the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rule 34(5) as mentioned hereinabove also provides the same. Hence, in accordance with the ratio of the above Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgements, such decisions rendered after 3 months need to be recalled and heard afresh as they are liable for mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we recall the afore-said common orders of the Tribunal due to delay beyond three months in pronouncing the order in accordance with the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision as above. The registry is directed to fix the appeals in normal course for hearing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 395 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1