Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

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,

¶27

2

¶28

consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications.

¶29

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.

¶30

3. Heard the parties.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

C.M.P. No.41 of 2017, C.M.P. No.42 of 2017 & C.M.P. No.43 of 2017

¶34

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

¶35

3

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions by which the aforementioned Tax Appeals were directed to be restored subject to removal of defects within a period of four weeks.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

4

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

13. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand disposed of.

¶45

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶46

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶47

Birendra/

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha Vs Sudhir Kumar Sinha

Biru Mehta Alias Biru Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand Vs Mr Man Mohan Prasad

Ajay Turi Vs Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.