High CourtsDivision Bench(1992) 11 BOM CK 0017

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Union Bank of India

Bombay High Court · Decided on 17 November 1992 · Citation: (1993) 1 BomCR 266

HON’BLE JUDGES
U.T. Shah, J · B.P. Saraf, J
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax Reference No. 468 of 1977

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 305 words
1.

This reference was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 1977. Under Rule 658 of the High Court, Original Side Rules, it is the duty of the party at whose instance the reference is made to serve the notice on the opposite party and this should be done within two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the High Court. Though long 15 years have passed, in the instant case the Commissioner, at whose instance the reference has been made, has not served the notice on the respondent. The matter was placed as required by Rule 658 by the Prothonotary before the Court for necessary orders on 9th November, 1992. On that day, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel for the department stated that in respect of all pending matters of 1977, service will be effected and/or affidavit of service will be filed on or before 16th November, 1992. Accordingly, time was granted to the Commissioner at the request of the Counsel to effect service and filed affidavits of service before 16th November, 1992.

2.

The matter has been placed on board today for orders as no service has been effected till today and no affidavit of service has been filed by the applicant-Commissioner of Income Tax.

3.

This reference is pending in this Court since 1977. This long period of 15 years should have been more than sufficient for the Commissioner to effect service on the respondent, but that was not done. Despite that further time, as prayed for by the Counsel for the Commissioner, was granted for effecting service. That period has also lapsed without any effective step. Under the circumstances, we are left with no option than to return this reference unanswered.

4.

Accordingly, reference is returned unanswered.

5.

No order as to costs.