:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.495 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.495 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.495 OF 2005 The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) ..Appellant Vs. Sadharmik Utkarsh Trust ..Respondent Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for the Appellant. Mr.Prakash Jhaveri - Respondent-in-person on behalf of Trust. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH OCTOBER, 2008 : 16TH OCTOBER, 2008 : 16TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Prakash Jhaveri in-person on behalf of the Respondent-Trust. 2. In the above, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law: a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowing exemption under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(1) (d) of the Income Tax Act to the Assessee? 3. We have perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24th August,2008. The above Appeal pertains to A.Y.1995-96. The Tribunal had relied on its earlier order pertaining to the A.Y.1993-94 with regard to very same Assessee. :2: 4. It appears that the Department had challenged the orders pertaining to A.Y.1994-95 and 1996-97 by way of an Appeal, and this Court by a detailed order dated 10th August,2006 had dismissed both the Appeals for the A.Y.1994-95 and 1996-97 bearing Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1007 of 2006 and Income Tax Appeal No.(L) No.1006 of 2006. In fact, the Tribunal in paragraph No.3 of its order had categorically mentioned that in view of the fact, that there is no variation in the facts for the present year i.e. A.Y.1995-96, respectfully following the aforesaid decision for the A.Y.1993-94, the Department’s Appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, for the very same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 10th August,2006 passed by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the above Appeal. 6. In the above Appeal, Mr.Prakash Jhaveri the Respondent-in-person had appeared on behalf of the Respondent-Trust on 29th September,2008. On that day on the application of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we had adjourned the matter to 13th October,2008 to enable the Appellant to take instructions about the decision of this Court with regard to the earlier Assessment Years. On 13th October,2008, again the learned Counsel for the :3: Appellant took time to take instructions in the above, and accordingly we had adjourned the matter for today i.e. 16th October,2008. On 13th October,2008 also, Mr.Prakash Jhaveri was present in the Court. 7. Today also Mr.Prakash Jhaveri is present in the Court and he has been attending the Court from Surat. It is unfortunate that neither the Appellant nor the Appellant’s Counsel has taken any steps whatsoever to find out about the earlier order passed by this Court though the above matter had been adjourned at last three instances. However, Mr.Prakash Jhaveri who is appearing in person on behalf of the Respondent has tendered the copy of the order dated 10th August, 2006, passed by this Court. 8. Mr.D.S.Gaonkar, Inspector working in the Department of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai-12, though has been attending the Court, he very casually states that he has no instructions with regard to the above Appeal and also he has not bothered to get the details with regard to the Assessee. It is very sorry state of affairs that in spite of three adjournments had been granted to the Appellant, the Appellant is unable to get all the details with regard to the Assessee. When the Representative of the Department is personally present in the Court, it is expected that he should be armed with all the necessary particulars and details. This is nothing but :4: dereliction of duties. Under these circumstances, we direct the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai-12 to initiate appropriate Departmental Enquiry against the said Mr.D.S.Gaonkar, Inspector. 9. In view of the hardship caused to the Respondent, we direct that the Appellant shall pay the costs quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the Respondent within a week from today. 10. The Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)