Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. State Bank of Patiala

1. Facts of the case

In OMP(M)9/2014, the applicant-appellant sought condonation of 51 days’ delay in filing an appeal. Respondent counsel had no objection. The source lacks party names; matched court metadata identifies Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. State Bank of Patiala under the same CNR, application docket and date.

Source: PDF p.1

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Court condoned the delay, disposed of the application and took the appeal on board, directing the Registry to diarize it. Vishal Mohan waived notice for the respondent and said an identical matter was pending. Its particulars were to be supplied to the Registry within one week.

Source: PDF p.1

3. Judicial decision

Delay of 51 days was condoned. Notice was issued and waived for the respondent; listing with the connected matter was directed for 22 May 2014. The supplied sheet does not print a numbered main appeal or determine its substantive grounds.

Source: PDF p.1

4. Outcome / in whose favour

The applicant-appellant obtains procedural access to the appeal. Condonation and connected listing do not establish a decision on the underlying TDS liability.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

Condonation removes the recorded delay obstacle, without deciding tax merits

The specific delay in OMP(M)9/2014 is 51 days. The Court records the respondent’s lack of objection and condones that delay. It does not set out a general rule that an unopposed delay must always be condoned, and it does not adjudicate the main appeal’s tax grounds. The particular application and outcome should remain traceable.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

Taking the appeal on board does not supply an unprinted appeal number

The Registry is directed to diarize the appeal after condonation. The sheet identifies OMP(M)9/2014 but no main ITA number. No numbered appeal should be manufactured from another bank matter or from a nearby registry entry. The order records a procedural next step, rather than a final appellate decision.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

Notice waiver and connected listing have distinct functions

Respondent counsel waives notice and identifies an identical pending matter whose particulars must be furnished within one week. The order lists the case with that matter on 22 May 2014 but does not identify its docket or explain its eventual result. These historical directions do not establish compliance or a fresh timetable beginning with publication.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1

Keep the two bank applications separate despite matching language

OMP(M)9/2014 and OMP(M)10/2014 are separate source orders carrying different application numbers and CNRs, although party names, date, delay and procedural language match. The matched metadata supplies this caption only; the signed order controls Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice, and V.K. Sharma as the bench. The source identifies no TDS provision, assessment year or disputed sum, so none is inferred.

Source: PDF p.1 · Matched court metadata for caption · PDF p.1