In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, has allowed the restoration of Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 89/2024, which was previously dismissed due to non-compliance by the counsel. The case, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior v. M/S Khajuraho Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd., highlights the court’s concern for ensuring that litigants are not penalized for errors committed by their legal representatives.
Background of the Case
The Income Tax Appeal No. 89/2024 was dismissed on August 23, 2024, by the Principal Registrar of the Madhya Pradesh High Court due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with a peremptory order dated July 1, 2024. The petitioner, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, represented by advocate Shri Harshvardhan Topre, sought restoration of the appeal through Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 3399 of 2024.
The dismissal occurred because the counsel for the petitioner did not file an application for the condonation of delay in time. The counsel argued that the delay was unintentional and due to a genuine oversight, and thus, the appeal deserved to be restored.
Legal Issues Involved
The principal legal issue was whether the Income Tax Appeal, dismissed for non-compliance by the counsel, could be restored. The counsel for the applicant sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing that the mistake was bona fide. The case revolved around:
– Whether the litigant should suffer due to the fault of their legal representative.
– Whether the court should grant leniency in cases where the non-compliance is unintentional and the mistake is rectifiable.
The bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani examined whether the circumstances warranted leniency based on established precedents.
Key Observations by the Court
In delivering the judgment, Justice Anand Pathak underscored that “for the fault of the counsel, the litigant should not be made to suffer.” The court referenced the Supreme Court ruling in M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam (AIR 2001 SC 2497), which supports the principle that bona fide mistakes by legal representatives should not lead to irreversible penalties for clients.
The court emphasized that the reasons provided by the petitioner’s counsel were genuine and that the mistake was not intentional. Moreover, it acknowledged the wider legal principle of fairness in ensuring that procedural lapses by a lawyer do not harm the client’s substantive rights.
Court’s Decision and Social Audit Proposal
In a compassionate yet innovative ruling, the court not only restored the ITA No. 89/2024 but also suggested a form of social service as a reflection of good faith. Justice Pathak encouraged the petitioner’s counsel to engage in an hour of community service by visiting the Mercy Home (Madhav Andha Ashram, Gwalior), bringing snacks worth Rs. 1,000 for the inmates, including differently-abled children. The court viewed this as a meaningful way to bridge societal gaps, stating:
“This community service of one hour would not only be satisfying to the soul but would also give a message to the differently-abled children that society and its members care for them and that they are not considered as the children of the Lesser God.”
The suggestion was not punitive but a voluntary action accepted gracefully by the counsel. The court expressed the hope that such initiatives would foster a sense of responsibility among professionals in fields like law, medicine, and administration.
Call for Social Audits
The court further proposed the concept of ‘Social Audits’, emphasizing that professionals in influential positions should periodically visit orphanages, old age homes, and other institutions to monitor conditions and ensure the well-being of the residents. This, the court noted, would promote accountability in the management of such institutions and prevent abuses.
Justice Pathak noted:
“Evolution of the concept of Social Audit and its effective implementation is the need of the hour. Policy makers especially Department of Women and Child Development (DWCD), Dept. of Social Justice, and Police Department must come out with some tangible solution in this regard.”
The case was disposed of on September 30, 2024, with the ITA No. 89/2024 being restored to its original number.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior v. M/S Khajuraho Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
– Case No.: Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 3399 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Shri Harshvardhan Topre
