Calcutta H.C : From a judgment and order of this Court dt. 6th May, 1985, in IT Ref. No. 21 of 1977, the Revenue seeks to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. The present application is an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.

High Court Of Calcutta

CIT vs. Metal Distributors Ltd.

Section 261

Dipak Kumar Sen & Mrs. Monjula Bose, JJ.

IT Ref. No. 21 of 1977

1st December, 1986

Counsel Appeared

A.N. Bhattacharjee, for the Revenue : S.K. Bagaria & A.K. Dey, for the Assessee

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.:

From a judgment and order of this Court dt. 6th May, 1985, in IT Ref. No. 21 of 1977, the Revenue seeks to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. The present application is an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.

2. It appears from the records that certified copies of the judgment and order were applied for by the Revenue on 9th May, 1985. The certified copy of the order was obtained on 23rd May, 1985, and the certified copy of this judgment was received on 3rd June, 1986. Taking into account the three days’ delay in applying for certified copies, the time to make application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court expired on or about 27th July, 1986. The Revenue instructed its advocate-on-record to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court on 11th July, 1986, more than one month after the certified copy of the judgment was made available. On 16th July, 1986, learned lawyer was briefed to draw up the application. It appears that dictation of the draft application was given to the stenographer of the learned lawyer on or about 22nd July, 1986. The stenographer, it is alleged, fell sick and did not report for duty till 10th Aug., 1986. The draft was finally made available to the Department on 11th Aug., 1986. The application was finalised, made ready and affirmed on or about 20th Aug., 1986.

3. By that time, the time to file the said application having expired, the Revenue started taking steps for making an application for condonation of delay. Instruction were received by the lawyer for drafting the second application on 21st Aug., 1986. The said application was drafted and made over to the Department for approval on 2nd Sep., 1986. The records, it appears, were lost thereafter in the Department and were traced after searches on or about 6th Oct., 1986, by which time this Court had closed for the Puja vacation. The Court reopened on 4th Nov., 1986, and the present application has been filed on 13th Nov., 1986. It appears to us that no grounds have been made out by the Revenue for condonation of the delay. Most of the material allegations in the petition are verified as based on records and not on anybody’s personal knowledge. There is no explanation for the delay which occurred during the intervening period at all. There is no explanation for the delay of more than one month in instructing the lawyer to draw up the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court after the certified copy of the judgment and order was received. Similarly, there is no explanation for instructing the advocate- on-record to draft the application for condonation of the delay on 21st Aug., 1986, when the time to file the application for leave to appeal expired on 21st July, 1986, itself. The two applications could have been combined and moved much earlier.

4. This application is rejected. There will be no order as to costs.

MONJULA BOSE, J.:

I agree.

[Citation : 172 ITR 356]

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security