2014 (9) TMI 281 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal Lapse on the part of advocate - Removal of office objection Held that - Every Department s/Revenue s appeal filed and pending for non-removal of office objection ought to be followed up by not only the Advocate for Revenue but by the Revenue Officials in charge of initiating litigation and in the Higher Court - They ought to be guided by the Superiors as to how the matter needs to be followed up and along with the Advocate - the matters of Revenue and Tax ought to be followed up with due diligence.

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in appeal filing due to office objection; Expectation of diligence in following up appeals by Revenue Department; Directions for Revenue officials to coordinate with advocates; Emphasis on public service and upholding public interest in Revenue and Tax matters.

The judgment by the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of condonation of delay in appeal filing due to office objection. The Court, upon hearing the Advocate for the Revenue, decided to condone the delay as the lapse was unintentional and the cause shown was satisfactory. The Court emphasized that the litigant should not suffer due to the Advocate's mistake, and hence, the delay was condoned, making the Notice of Motion absolute.

Another issue highlighted in the judgment was the expectation of diligence in following up appeals by the Revenue Department. The Court stressed that every Revenue appeal pending for non-removal of office objection should be actively followed up by both the Advocate and the Revenue Officials responsible for initiating litigation. The Court directed that the Departmental Officials must explain their lack of communication with the Advocate and take necessary actions to ensure proper follow-up in the future. The Court emphasized that all involved in Revenue matters should act in public interest and uphold public good.

Furthermore, the judgment provided directions for Revenue officials to coordinate with advocates effectively. The Court stated that the Advocate's ownership of mistakes or lapses should not automatically lead to condonation of delays. It was highlighted that Departmental Officials must be guided by their superiors on how to handle matters and ensure diligent follow-up. The Court warned of penalties and departmental actions for lapses in following up Revenue and Tax matters.

Lastly, the judgment emphasized the importance of public service and upholding public interest in Revenue and Tax matters. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax-I to take necessary steps and report back to the Court on actions proposed for pending matters and future cases. The Court stressed that all involved in Revenue and Tax matters must understand their role in public service and act diligently to uphold public interest.