2017 (8) TMI 1357 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay for not filing appeal - Held that - This is no explanation for the delay of 1371 days and if for all these years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal, a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to subserve larger public interest. If they are found to be hand-in-glove with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. The Registrar (O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow. If this is a known fact to all practising Advocates, including the Revenue s Advocates, then, we do not think that any special treatment can be claimed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in moving the notice of motion seeking quashing of an order passed by the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master.
2. Justification for condoning the delay in moving the notice of motion.
3. Compliance with procedural rules for filing Income Tax Appeals by the Revenue/Department of Income Tax.
4. Responsibility of Revenue officials in pursuing legal cases in the High Court.
5. Consequences of negligence and callousness of Revenue officials in handling appeals.
6. Court's stance on condoning serious lapses in the functioning of Revenue officials.
7. Decision on the notice of motion seeking to set aside the order.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the delay in moving the notice of motion seeking to quash an order passed by the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master on 13-6-2013. The notice of motion was moved belatedly on 16-3-2017, leading to a delay of 1371 days.

2. The applicant sought to justify the delay by claiming that the Department discovered the rejection order of 13-6-2013 only during arguments for other appeals. The appeal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 was rejected due to non-removal of office objections, leading to the dismissal without adjudication on merits. The applicant requested the court to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

3. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural rules for filing Income Tax Appeals by the Revenue/Department of Income Tax. It noted that the Revenue's appeals must adhere to the procedural rules, and any defects or deficiencies should be rectified promptly upon notification.

4. The court highlighted the responsibility of Revenue officials in pursuing legal cases in the High Court. It criticized the trend of officials passing on responsibilities to junior staff or Advocates without proper oversight or follow-up on the progress of appeals filed by the Revenue.

5. The judgment addressed the consequences of negligence and callousness displayed by Revenue officials in handling appeals involving significant tax implications. The court expressed concern over the lack of vigilance and interest shown by Revenue officials in pursuing cases filed by the Department.

6. The court firmly stated its stance on condoning serious lapses in the functioning of Revenue officials. It refused to accept the explanations provided by the Department for the delay and emphasized the need for officials to be vigilant and proactive in pursuing legal matters.

7. Ultimately, the court decided to dismiss the notice of motion seeking to set aside the order passed by the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master. The decision was based on the court's previous rulings and the refusal to condone similar delays in other matters, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and responsibilities.