- (1.) THE purported substantial question of law which has arisen for consideration in this special leave petition is as to whether a payment of water charges would amount to revenue expenditure or not.
(2.) THE High Court dismissed the appeal summarily. The SLP, however, is barred by 481 days. The SLP although contains only six grounds, the application for condonation of delay runs into thirty pages. Large number of decisions have been cited to suggest as to what judiciary is required to do in such matters. In a case of this nature, we wish to observe that it is high time that the petitioner, viz, the CIT should try to set its own house in order. We fail to understand why apart from the fact that the SLPs are filed contrary to the circular letters issued by the CBDT and in respect of assessment years which are more than twenty years old. It is beyond any comprehension as to why actions are not taken against the officers for whose fault the delay has occurred.
(3.) WE , furthermore, fail to appreciate as to why the procedure of placing the records before so many officers for filing an application for grant of special leave cannot be minimized. 2008, i.e., after a period of three months. Who is responsible for such delay and what action has been taken against the officers concerned has not been disclosed in the application for condonation. No sufficient cause for condonation of delay has been shown. 5. We, therefore, while dismissing the SLP, direct the CIT to consider the desirability of taking appropriate action(s) in the light of the observations made hereinbefore.;