Motilal & Gouri Food and Storage Pvt. Ltd. V. The Union of India and The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agartala Circle

WP(C)/587/2015

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Motilal & Gouri Food and Storage Pvt. Ltd., which filed a writ petition against the rejection of their revision petition by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. The revision petition was initially rejected on the grounds of being barred by four months, without considering the accompanying application for condonation of delay. The High Court observed that the revisional authority had not adequately addressed the condonation of delay application and thus remanded the case for a substantive hearing on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691400 (HC-TRIPURA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A ROY BARMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S M CHAKRABORTY; P SEN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Revision petition

Judgement Text

" THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A W.P(C) No. 587 of 2015 Petitioner : M/s. Motilal & Gouri Food and Storage Pvt. Ltd. Rashik Kunja, Old Guest House Road, P.O. Agartala, District-West Tripura. Represented by its Director, Shri Uttam Paul. By Advocates : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Ms. P. Sen, Adv. Respondents : 1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, Aayakar Bhawan, M. G. Road, Shillong- 793001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agartala Circle, City Centre, 6th Floor, H.G. Basak Road, P.O. Agartala, District-West Tripura. By Advocate : Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC for respondent No.1. B E F O R E THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U. B. SAHA Date of hearing & Judgment & Order : 25th February, 2016. Whether fit for reporting : JUDGMENT & ORDER(Oral) (Deepak Gupta, C.J.) The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the revision petition filed by him before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, respondent No.2 has been rejected only on the ground that it is Yes No √ W.P(c) No. 587 of 2015 Page 2 of 3 2 barred by 4(four) months without taking into consideration the fact that along with the revision petition the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay. Since the only question was whether the petitioner had in fact filed an application for condonation of delay and any order was passed on that, we had while issuing notice on 3rd December, 2015 ordered as follows: ”***** In the notice, it shall be clearly stated that the reply be filed within this period and the record of the proceedings of the revision petition filed by the petitioner be produced before this Court on the next date. ****” [2] Though respondents 2 and 3 have been served none has put in appearance on their behalf before us and therefore, we accept the statement made in the petition to be correct. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appeared for the Union of India but obviously he cannot help us in the matter because he has no knowledge of what transpired in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. [3] Sri S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to the copy of the revision petition attached at Annexure-3 as well as the application for condonation of delay, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the condonation of delay application the petitioner company had stated that it has traced out the order of assessment and is accordingly filing the revision petition and had prayed for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. [4] We are constrained to observe that the revisional authority i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, respondent No.2 has disposed of the revision in a very cursory manner without even realizing that there is an W.P(c) No. 587 of 2015 Page 3 of 3 3 application for condonation of delay. The delay was also only a four months. Instead of having another round of litigation, we direct that the delay is deemed to be condoned. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and send back the matter to him to hear the revision petition on merits. He shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who may either appear in person or through counsel. The Principal Commissioner shall pass a reasoned speaking order while deciding the case. [5] The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE "