Case Law Details
The decision in the case of “Prem Chand Bansal and Sons Vs. Income Tax Officer” (supra) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, as relied on behalf of applicant, was concerned a similar issue as fell for consideration in the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case “Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd.”(supra). The petitioner therein had asserted that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of “Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(1991) 189 ITR 81] (Delhi)” was upset in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT , (1991) 224 ITR 677”. The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court by a petition under Section 256(2) of the Act which was filed with a delay of about 25 days. The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days. The High Court has made the following observations:-
“………. We are of the opinion that decision shall have to be taken in the facts of each individual case whether such circumstance constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning the delay within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In the case at hand the decision was given by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act on 30.5.95 forming an opinion that the issue being governed by an available decision of jurisdiction High Court, no referable question of law arose from its appellate order. So long as the decision of Delhi High Court in Escorts Ltd.’ s case (supra)
held the field, it would have served no useful purpose in pursuing the matter further. Rather it would have amounted to an attempt at striking the head against the wall. Shortly thereafter the law was settled by an authentic pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Promptly the matter was entrusted to the Counsel for moving the High Court by an appropriate application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. A delay of about 25 days was occasioned for factors attributable to personal inability of the Counsel for which the litigant cannot be blamed. Factors like gross negligence, contumacy or misconduct cannot be attributed either to the litigant or to the Counsel.”
Delhi High Court
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
