Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Naath Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1988-89
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 256(1): Failure to serve reference as provided by Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court Rules upon the Respondent means that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the reference and the same has to be returned unanswered

(i) This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on two substantial questions of law as framed by it. However, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant assessee very fairly states that he is not in a possession of evidence to show that the Reference has been served upon the Revenue. This Reference is of the year 2000. In terms of Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, the party at whose instance a Reference has been made to this Court is required to take all such steps as are necessary to have a notice issued and served upon the opposite party within two months from the receipt of notice of the Reference from the High Court.

(ii) In view of the fact that the applicant assessee has no evidence of having served the Reference upon the Respondent Revenue, we are not inclined to examine the questions of law as raised for our opinion at the instance of the applicant assessee. Mr. Ravi Rattesar states that he has now served the Respondent Revenue and would request that the Reference be taken up for disposal. This Reference pertains to the year 2000 relating to A.Y. 1985-86. This non compliance with the requirement of service for over sixteen years is itself an indication of the applicant not being serious about pursuing this Reference. Thus we decline to extend time. In the above view, the Reference is returned unanswered. However, it is made clear that the question raised hereinabove are left open for consideration in an appropriate case, if not already decided.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top