Condonation of delay for 260A judgment Arrived

[brett_lee38]

Fortunately i got the judgment of condonation of delay I am giving the judgment of Delhi High Court condoning delay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 
   23.09.2009
  Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
  Mr. S.Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sukumuran, Advocate and Mr.
  Anand Sukumar, Advocate for the respondent.
   
   C.M. No.16272/2008 in I.T.A. No.1365/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs.   MONITOR INDIA LTD.
 
  There is delay of 180 days in filing the present appeal. It is
  stated in this application that initially order was received in Delhi but since
  the jurisdiction was transferred to Mumbai, this order was sent to Mumbai and it
  was decided to file the appeal there. However, the Senior Standing Counsel in
  Mumbai opined that appropriate jurisdiction vests with Delhi High Court and not
  Bombay High Court. The matter was accordingly sent back to Delhi and because of
  this reason delay occurred.
  Learned counsel for the respondent though does not dispute that
  the aforesaid cause furnished by the appellant would constitute sufficient cause
  for condoning the delay , his submission however, is that this Court has no
  power to condone the delay in appeals filed under Section 260(A) of the Income
  Tax Act. However, in I.T.A. No.932/2008 vide order dated 4.9.2008 in Ravinder
  Nath Jain Vs. C.I.T., it has been decided by this Court that the High Court has
  power to condone the delay. Therefore, we do not agree with this objection of
  learned counsel for the respondent. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
  CM is disposed of.
  C.M. No.16273/2008 in I.T.A. No.1365/2008
  For the reasons stated in this application, delay in refilling the
  appeal is condoned.
  CM is disposed of.
  I.T.A. No.1365/2008
  Admit.
  The following substantial question of law arises for determination:
  ?Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section
  40(a)(i) could not have been applied by the Assessing Officer to disallow the
  sum of Rs.55.40 lacs claimed by the assessee under the head ?fees for
  deputations of foreign professionals? as the provisions of Section 195(1) were
  not applicable to the present case??
 
  Papers book be filed within three months.
 
 
  A.K.SIKRI, J
 
 
 
 
 
  VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J
 
  September 23, 2009
  Ne/pmc
 
  # 13
 

[ashutosh majumdar]

Dear Bret Lee,

Thanks for this but a few things are not clear.

(i)   The Court has followed an earlier order dated 4.9.2008 in Ravinder Nath Jain Vs. C.I.T. Do you have that order? What is the basis of that judgement?
(ii)   Hongo was decided on 27th March 2009 i.e. much after Ravinder Nath Jain was decided.
(iii)   How can Ravinder Nath be good law if Hongo was not considered?
(iv)   How come in the judgement cited by you (Monitor India), Hongo was not cited?

If you have any answers, it will be great.

[brett_lee38]

You are right but the actual date is 04-09-2009 not 04-09-2008 of ravinder nath Jain case. Which is mistakenly typed. If you visit the sight of Delhi High Court and search about the judgment of Ravinder Nath jain then you will find that the last date of hearing of Ravinder Nath jain was 11.08.2009 and on that day the same was adjourned to 04-09-2009 and on 04-09-2009 it was finally decided which judgment is in que, not avialable on net. However they have followed the judgment in numerous cases and the case which is quoted by me is one from them. If any clarification you want then please call me    

[ashutosh majumdar]

Ok. Thanks. I tried but couldn't get the Ravindra Nath Jain's judgement. Doesn't seem to have been uploaded. Strange, considering it is such an important issue.

If you get your hands on it could you please post it here? It will be interesting to see how they have distinguished Hongo.