2016 (8) TMI 1151 - HC - Income Tax

Notice of motion seeks condonation of 69 days delay - Held that - The affidavit in support of the present notice of motion seeks to recall the order dated 22nd April, 2016 continues to demonstrate the same casualness which resulted in order dated 22nd April, 2016. The present affidavit does not even make an attempt to explain the reason for 69 days delay in taking out this notice of motion. Further the affidavit filed in support of the present notice of motion also does not make any attempt to explain the number of days delay in filing the notice of motion which was dismissed on 22nd April, 2016. The dismissal was for lack of particulars that the present affidavit states is that there is a 110 days delay due to oversight and communication gap. Again no particulars of the circumstances. Present affidavit excels the earlier affidavit in support of notice of motion in carelessness. We find that no reason has been made out either to explain the delay in taking out this motion or justify the recalling of the order dated 22nd April, 2016.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing motion, recall of orders dated 15th April, 2016 and 22nd April, 2016, casualness in filing affidavit by Revenue officers, lack of necessary details in affidavit, justification for delay in filing motion, dismissal of notice of motion.

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with a notice of motion seeking condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the motion and the recall of orders dated 15th April, 2016, and 22nd April, 2016. The court noted that the affidavit in support of the notice of motion lacked necessary details and was casual in nature. The affidavit, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, contained blanks regarding critical issues for consideration of the delay. The court highlighted that the officers of the Revenue often file affidavits in a casual manner, which was a recurring issue. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of sincerity from the Revenue in restoring the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the notice of motion.

Regarding the justification for the delay in filing the motion, the court found that the affidavit seeking to recall the order dated 22nd April, 2016, demonstrated the same casualness that led to the initial dismissal. The affidavit did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 69-day delay. It was noted that the affidavit did not clarify the reason for the delay adequately, and the court pointed out discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the affidavit. Additionally, the affidavit failed to explain the number of days' delay in filing the notice of motion that was dismissed on 22nd April, 2016, due to lack of particulars. The court criticized the carelessness in the present affidavit, stating that it did not justify the delay or the recall of the order dated 22nd April, 2016.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the notice of motion, emphasizing that the present affidavit did not provide sufficient reasons to explain the delay in filing the motion or to support the recalling of the order dated 22nd April, 2016. The decision was based on the court's observation that the affidavit lacked essential details and failed to address the concerns raised regarding the casual approach of Revenue officers in filing affidavits.