ORDER
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 23rd March, 2000 and the previous orders leading up to the order dt. 23rd March, 2000. This order reads as follows:
In conformity with the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal, who have heard this case, including those who first heard it, for the reasons stated in the order, we allow the assessed’s appeal, pro tanto.
2. The order shows that the Revenue was represented by Shri S.R. Malik, Departmental Representative. We have seen the file maintained by the Tribunal and there is nothing to indicate that this order was reserved and pronounced later. In any case, since the order is of hardly four lines, it is very unlikely that it would have been reserved and pronounced later on particularly since the hearing took place on the same date, that is, 23rd March, 2000.
3. The present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue on 6th May, 2005.
On 10th Nov., 2005, when the matter came up for hearing, it was contended by learned Counsel for the assessed that the appeal was barred by limitation but learned Counsel for the Revenue contended that a copy of the order of the Tribunal was never received by the Revenue till an application for certified copy was made and a copy was delivered on 7th Jan., 2005. Even this was disputed by learned Counsel for the assessed who then stated that he would be moving an application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation.
4. Learned Counsel for the assessed tells us that the application was filed on 14th March, 2006 under Diary No. 1212 but it is not on record. The Registry should now place the application on record. In any case, a reply was filed to the application by the Revenue and a rejoinder has also been filed, both of which are on record.
5. When the matter was listed before this Court on 11th Dec, 2006, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the order dt. 23rd March, 2000 passed by the Tribunal was not pronounced in the presence of the parties and that it was not received by the IT Department.
6. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, we have already noticed that the order is an extremely short order of hardly four lines and it records the presence of the Departmental Representative. There is nothing on the file maintained by the Tribunal to suggest that the order was reserved. We may note that the matter was heard on 23rd March, 2000 and the order was passed on the same date. Under these circumstances, we cannot accept the contention of learned Counsel for the Revenue that the order dt. 23rd March, 2000 was not pronounced in the presence of the parties, particularly the Departmental Representative.
7. The order dt. 11th Dec, 2006 then notes that the order dt. 23rd March, 2000 was never received by the IT Department. Since the order was pronounced in the presence of the Departmental Representative, if he chooses not to inform the IT Department about the proceedings and the Department chooses not to ask its Departmental Representative about what has happened in the case, the Department has only itself to blame.
8. In any case, on 11th Dec, 2006 this Court directed the requisitioning of the relevant records of the Tribunal to determine not only the date on which the order dt. 20th March, 2000 was dispatched but also the date on which it was received by the Chief CIT or the CIT concerned.
9. In response, an officer from the Tribunal has appeared before us and handed over a letter sent by the Asstt. Registrar of the Tribunal to the Registrar General of this Court. The letter is taken on record. In this letter, it has clearly been mentioned that the final order passed by the Tribunal on 23rd March, 2000 was sent to the CIT as well as the Departmental Representative. The CIT returned the order on 2nd May, 2000 by declining to accept it.
10. There is no mention whether the Departmental Representative received the order or not and so the only presumption that we can draw is that it was in fact received by the Departmental Representative. Even if it was not received by the Departmental Representative, the fact still remains that he was present on 23rd March, 2000 when the order was passed in his presence and it was his duty to inform the concerned CIT about the proceedings that took place. It was also the responsibility of the concerned CIT to find out what has happened in the case before the Tribunal. It appears that neither the Departmental Representative communicated anything to the CIT nor the CIT bothered to find out what has happened in the case with the result that the appeal has been filed after a delay of more than five years.
11. It may be noted that the assessed has stated on affidavit that the AO had passed an order on 24th Nov., 2004 giving effect to the orders passed in its favor. According to the Revenue, it was not aware of the order passed until 7th Jan., 2005. If that be so, it is not understood how the AO has given effect to the order more than a month earlier, on 24th Nov., 2004.
12. Given this state of affairs, it is very difficult to accept the version of the Revenue. Consequently, we are of the view that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time and there is absolutely no reason worth the while having been rendered by the Revenue to explain the delay.
13. Under the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal with costs of Rs. 5,000, which shall be deposited by the IT Department with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today.
14. It is made clear that in case the costs are not paid within the time given, the IT Department may have to pay further costs.
15. List for compliance on 21st Aug., 2007.
16. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Revenue says that the assessed had annexed a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal along with its letter dt. 13th Aug., 2004. If that be so, surely the Revenue was aware of the passing of the order on that date and not on 7th Jan., 2005, as contended.
17. We may mention that it is extremely unfortunate that the Asstt. Registrar of the Tribunal chooses to write to the Registrar General of this Court directly. The least that we could have expected is that an officer of an equivalent rank could have written to the Registrar General of this Court. This shows the manner in which the Registry of the Tribunal functions and it should be brought to the notice of the President of the Tribunal.