(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)
1. On 26.6.2012, we have recorded in our order that arguments of both the sides are concluded and only in order to hear Mr.Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for Regional Director, the matter was adjourned to subsequent date i.e. on 4.7.2012.
2. It is surprising that, today from the bunch of papers of this Court, we came across an affidavit of one Shri B.P.Srivastava, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Ahmedabad by which he has annexed more than 100 pages along with the affidavit. It is unfortunate that even though arguments of both the sides were concluded on the last date, directly an affidavit is filed in the Registry. Registry is directed not to accept any document directly and without leave of the Court when the arguments are concluded. If such practice is continued, in a given case, if the judgment is kept CAV, one may mischievously put some documents by filing the same before the Registry. Registry is, accordingly, strictly directed not to accept any papers when the arguments are concluded or in a given case, the judgment is kept CAV. Registry may inform the concerned advocates to take leave of the Court in this behalf before accepting any document on record when the arguments are concluded in the matter. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar (Judicial) and the Computer Department for taking necessary action in this behalf.
3. In this case, since the arguments are already concluded, no document can be placed on record. In spite of our clear order dated 26.6.2012, some documents along with the affidavit are placed on record without leave of the Court. Learned advocate Mr.Nitin Mehta has tendered unconditional apology and states that he will take back the said papers immediately by today evening. The affidavit filed by Shri B.P.Srivastava along with the annexures thereto be treated as deregistered and Registry is directed to hand over the papers back immediately.
4. At the time when the matter was being heard by this Court, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that similar scheme has been approved by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court wherein an identical point raised here has also been raised. At that time, learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the Income Tax Department has made the statement that the appeal is already filed, which according to him is likely to come up for admission on reopening of the Delhi High Court after summer vacation. Today, Mr.Mehta states that the appeal has not been placed for admission and he has not received any instructions in this behalf. Since the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court has bearing in this matter and though from time to time, the argument is made on behalf of the Income Tax Department that the appeal is already filed long back and even though learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has passed the order as back as on 29.3.2011, Mr.Mehta is not a position to assist the Court about the delay in placing the papers of the appeal filed before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Hence, we direct the responsible officer of the Income Tax Department, Delhi, who is having jurisdiction over the issue in question, to remain personally present before this Court on 20.7.2012 at 11.00 a.m. with necessary information and files about the proceedings of the Delhi High Court. Mr.Mehta has assured the Court that he will inform the responsible officer of the Income Tax Department, Delhi without fail.
5. It is required to be noted that when an identical issue is decided by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, on the basis of judicial comity, this Court is entitled to know as to what has happened to the appeal against the order which has been passed before more than 15 months. In fact, in the past, time was given to Mr.Mehta to give exact information, but since we have not received satisfactory information in this behalf, we have no option, but to summon the responsible officer of the Income Tax Department, Delhi in this behalf. We accept the say of Mr.Mehta that he will communicate this order and take appropriate steps so that the responsible officer may remain personally present before this Court with necessary information in this behalf.
6. Mr.Mehta has frankly submitted that since the arguments are already concluded, he would not like to add anything further in the matter. Since the appellant has already submitted its written submissions, the respondents may submit their written submissions on or before 20.7.2012. Mr.Champaneri has also concluded his arguments and now his presence will not be required on the next date. Since the officer is called, the matter be notified on 20.7.2012.
Copy of this order be made available to Mr.Mehta forthwith.
(P.B.Majmudar,J) (Mohinder Pal,J) pathan Top