Sai Swadhin Commercials Pvt. Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar and another

WP(C)/26582/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Sai Swadhin Commercials Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, and another, the opposite parties, concerning the delay in the disposal of an income tax appeal for the assessment year 2016-17. The Department filed two applications seeking extensions for the disposal of the appeal, which were not initially listed before the court, leading to a procedural delay. The court criticized the Department's assumption of an extension and the filing of successive applications without prior compliance with the court's deadline. The court's decision aimed to ensure the timely resolution of the appeal while addressing the procedural missteps of the Department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805601 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R CHIMANKA
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHARTHA RAY
• Keywords: Appeal; Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); Extension of time; Income Tax; Incriminating material

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26582 of 2021 Sai Swadhin Commercials Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate -versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. R. Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY Order No. ORDER 19.01.2022 04. I.A. No.16320 of 2021 and I.A. No.222 of 2022 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. These are two applications by the Department seeking extension of time for passing the final order in the Petitioner- Assessee's appeal. It must be recalled that by an order dated 6th September 2021, this Court had directed that the Petitioner- Assessee's appeal for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17 should be disposed of by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] (Opposite Party No.2) not later than 8th November, 2021. 3. I.A. No.16320 of 2021 was filed two days before the deadline i.e. on 6th November 2021 seeking two months’ extension. For some reason, however, the said application was never mentioned for listing before the Court. No order was passed in the said I.A. by this Court. // 2 // Page 2 of 4 4. Meanwhile, on 5th January 2022, the second I.A. No.222 of 2022 was filed by the Department seeking a further four months’ extension. It appears that in this interregnum a communication was sent to the Petitioner-Assessee by the Opposite Party No.2 seeking its response to certain \"incriminating material\" stated to have been found against the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, takes strong exception to the conduct of the Department in presuming that the Court was going to grant extension of time for disposal of the appeal and in persisting with wilful disobedience of the Court's order for a time-bound disposal of the appeal, by filing one application after the other seeking extension and prolonging the hearing of the appeal. 6. Mr. R. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department expresses regret and submits that he was under a mistaken impression that since an application had been filed seeking extension, and when the first application was not taken up, a further application was filed seeking further extension, there was no deliberate violation as such of the deadline fixed by the Court. 7. The Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Department in not mentioning the first mentioned application i.e. I.A. No.16320 of 2021 for listing even once after it was filed; waiting for the deadline to expire and then filing a second // 3 // Page 3 of 4 application presuming that the Court was going to grant extension of time. 8. At the same time, the Court is conscious that as far as the Petitioner-Assessee is concerned, its predicament will not be resolved since its appeal has to be in disposed of by the CIT (A) in accordance with law, one way or the other. Therefore, without expressing any view whatsoever on the communication sent by Opposite Party No.2 to the Petitioner-Assessee and the legal effect thereof, and keeping all the contentions of the Petitioner-Assessee as well as the Department in that regard open for consideration at the appropriate stage, and while expressing disapproval of the conduct of the Department in presuming that the Court was going to grant it extension of time to comply with the Court’s earlier order, the Court grants a final opportunity to the CIT (A) to dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal by passing an appropriate order not later than 14th February 2022, and making the said order available to the Petitioner-Assessee not later than 21st February, 2022. 9. It is made clear that under no circumstances the above deadline shall be permitted to be crossed by the CIT (A). The Court places on record the submission of Mr. Ray that whatever the Petitioner-Assessee has to say in response to the communications sent to it by Opposite Party No.2, has already been submitted by it in writing and there is no necessity for any further hearing in the appeal. 10. The applications are disposed of in the above terms. // 4 // Page 4 of 4 I.A. No.531 of 2022 1. In view of the order passed today in the abovementioned I.As., no separate order is called for in the present I.A by the Petitioner-Assessee. 2. The I.A. is disposed of. 3. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020, modified by Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021, and Court’s Office Order circulated vide Memo Nos. No.514 and 515 dated 7th January, 2022. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray ) Judge S.K. Guin "