Commissioner of Income Tax, Del vs Rajesh Vats

These two appeals were admitted on 9th October 2007 and the questions of law were framed for consideration by the Court.

When the appeals were listed on 19th August 2014 with Mr. Rohit Madan, Senior standing counsel appearing for the Appellant, the Court passed the following order:

"Adjournment slips have been circulated.

Relist these appeals on 10th November 2014.

It is stated that the Respondent-Assessee in ITA Nos. 1735/2006 and 1742/2006 has expired. Details of legal representatives have been made available to the counsel for the Revenue for moving necessary application in accordance with law."

The Court has categorically recorded in the above order that the details of the legal representatives (''LRs'') of the deceased Respondent-Assessee "have been made available to the counsel for the Revenue". The Court noted that this was to enable counsel for the Appellant to file the necessary application for substitution in accordance with law.

On 10th November 2014 when the appeals were listed, an adjournment slip was circulated by the Revenue with no objection from the Assessee. Again the Court recorded in its order on that date that "it is stated that Rajesh Vats (Respondent-Assessee in ITAs 1735 and 1742 of 2006) has expired and application is to be filed." Therefore, till 10th November 2014 despite having the details of the LRs of the deceased Respondent-Assessee no application for substitution was filed by the Revenue.

On 4th February 2015 when the appeals were listed there was a change of counsel. Mr. Rohit Madan was substituted by Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel. Although Mr. Sawhney himself did not appear on that date, his associate Mr. Basabraj Chakraborty appeared on his behalf. The Court then passed the following order in the presence of Mr. Chakraborty:

"No application for setting aside the abatement and substitution of legal representatives has been filed despite the previous order; final opportunity is granted in this regard. List on 9th April 2015."

The position today is no different. There is no application filed by the Revenue till date for setting aside the abatement of the appeals and substitution of the deceased Respondent-Assessee with his LRs.

Mr. Sawhney states that he did not have the details of the LRs of the deceased Respondent-Assessee; that he had both Mr. Madan and the Department for the same but was unable to obtain the details; that he then asked learned counsel for the Respondent for the details of the LRs and those details were not provided to him; and that this Court should grant further adjournment to enable the Appellant /Revenue to file an application for substitution after the details are received from learned counsel for the Respondent.

In reply, it has been pointed out by Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent, that the details of the LRs of the deceased Respondent Assessee have already been furnished to the Appellant /Revenue long ago, as it had been recorded by the Court in its order dated 19th August 2014. At none of the hearings subsequent thereto was the Court informed by the Revenue that it did not have the details of the LRs. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that there was no justification seeking any further time for the Appellant/Revenue to file an application for substitution.

The Court finds that the request made on behalf of the Appellant for further time to file the application for substitution is not justified. It was categorically recorded in the order dated 19th August 2014 that the details of the LRs had already been made available to learned counsel for the Department. If Mr. Sawhney could not after 4th February 2015 get those details for some reason, there was sufficient time for him to have taken steps since then to obtain them. The details, as recorded in the Court''s order, were indeed given to the previous counsel Mr. Madan and ought to have been handed over by him to the Department. If there was any difficulty an application could have been filed seeking clarification. However, no steps whatsoever have been taken. The Court finds the approach of the Appellant in the matter to be casual.

In the circumstances, the Court is not prepared to grant any further indulgence to the Appellant. The appeals stand abated.