DR RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH ALIAS RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL AND ANR

C.M.P./43/2017

AI Insights

Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh filed three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions seeking restoration of previously dismissed Tax Appeals due to non-compliance with a court order requiring removal of defects within four weeks. The petitions were initially dismissed for default on 13.04.2016. The petitioner, citing health issues and treatment at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, was unable to comply with the court's order in time. The Income Tax Department did not object to the restoration of the appeals. The court found the reasons for the delay sufficient and restored the appeals, emphasizing the lack of deliberate fault or laches on the part of the petitioner or his counsel.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672509 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Limitation Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG VIJAY; ABHIJEET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK SINHA; PIYUSH PODDAR
• Keywords: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions; Condonation of delay; Tax Appeal Restoration
• Section: 5

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.41 of 2017 ----- Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna and Another … … Opp. Parties With C.M.P. No.42 of 2017 ----- Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Rabindra Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna and Another … … Opp. Parties With C.M.P. No.43 of 2017 ----- Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna and Another … … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate For the Income Tax : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ Order No. 09/Dated 12th March, 2024 I.A. No. 1022 of 2017 in CMP No.41/2017, I.A. No. 1023 of 2017 in CMP No.42/2017 & I.A. No. 1038 of 2017 in CMP No.43/2017 1. These interlocutory applications have been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 266 days in each case in all the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, this Court is of the view that before entering into the merit of the main petition, 2 consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications. 2. The instant interlocutory applications have been filed in the year 2017 itself but no objection has been filed so far as the condonation applications are concerned. However, the oral objection has been made. 3. Heard the parties. 4. This Court, taking into consideration the averment made in the interlocutory applications, is of the view that the reason shown for condoning the delay is sufficient for the purpose of entering into the merit of the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. As such, the delay of 266 days in preferring the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petitions is hereby condoned. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1022 of 2017 filed in CMP No.41/2017, I.A. No. 1023 of 2017 filed in CMP No.42/2017 and I.A. No. 1038 of 2017 filed in CMP No.43/2017 stand allowed. C.M.P. No.41 of 2017, C.M.P. No.42 of 2017 & C.M.P. No.43 of 2017 6. These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed for restoration of Tax Appeal No.62 of 2010, Tax Appeal No.61 of 2010 and Tax Appeal No.60 of 2010 which stood dismissed for default on 13.04.2016 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 16.03.2016 passed in Civil 3 Miscellaneous Petitions by which the aforementioned Tax Appeals were directed to be restored subject to removal of defects within a period of four weeks. 7. The reason assigned in these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions is that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 67 years and is suffering from Anxiety Depression and panic attacks from last few years and was under regular treatment at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. It has been mentioned that for better treatment the petitioner went to Vellore in the month of April 2016 and returned after July, 2016 and in that circumstances it was not possible for the petitioners’ counsel to remove the defects as pointed out by the office. 8. It has further been stated that there were no deliberate fault or laches on the part of the counsel or on the part of the petitioner and it was due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond his control. 9. It has been submitted that the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed for restoration of Tax Appeal No.62 of 2010, Tax Appeal No.61 of 2010 and Tax Appeal No.60 of 2010 and if the same will not be restored, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 10. Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Income Tax Department, is having no objection if the restoration applications will be allowed. 4 11. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, considering the submissions advanced on his behalf and the reason assigned in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, deems it fit and proper to restore the Tax Appeal No.62 of 2010, Tax Appeal No.61 of 2010 and Tax Appeal No.60 of 2010 which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 16.03.2016, to its original file. 12. In view thereof, the Letters Patent Appeal being Tax Appeal No.62 of 2010, Tax Appeal No.61 of 2010 and Tax Appeal No.60 of 2010 are restored to its original file, subject to compliance of the order dated 16.03.2016. 13. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/ "