2014 (11) TMI 946 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay Delay of 276 days Repeated delays by Revenue - Revenue places a Notice of Motion for seeking the condonation of delay of 276 days in seeking restoration of the Review Petition and thereafter seeks to quash and set aside the conditional order - Held that - The Revenue did not do anything after the order dated 23rd July, 2009 and after a lapse of more than two years, found that this is a fit case to seek review of the order passed by this Court dismissing the Appeal, as barred by limitation - there is substance in the grievance of the Assessee that the Notice of Motion should be dismissed - The Assessee has rightly complained that the Revenue has never adhered to the time limit or prescription in Law of Limitation - It defaulted repeatedly. Whether the proceedings have been filed in time, whether they are in order and whether the requisite steps have been taken by all concerned including the Advocates is a matter which must be equally looked into and attended the contention cannot be accepted that the negligence and lapse of the Advocate should not visit the Revenue with drastic consequences - Government or Revenue is not a special litigant - It cannot seek condonation of delay on any excuse or cause and as of right or as a matter of course - That there is indifference, lack of interest or some deliberate intentional act of its officers by itself and without anything more is therefore no ground to condone the delay - There is no magic formula and which can be applied to every case filed by the Government Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Notice of Motion.
2. Setting aside the order dated 22nd September, 2011.
3. Seeking restoration of the Review Petition.
4. Negligence and callousness on the part of the Revenue officials.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Notice of Motion:
The Revenue filed an Appeal challenging an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal was filed late, leading to objections from the Registry. Despite seeking extensions in other cases, the objections were not addressed within the stipulated time, resulting in the Appeal's dismissal. The High Court held that it lacked the power to condone the delay under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.

2. Setting Aside the Order Dated 22nd September, 2011:
The Revenue filed a Review Petition to recall the order dismissing the Appeal. However, the Review Petition was dismissed due to delays and non-compliance with conditional orders. The Revenue later sought to restore the Review Petition after a significant delay, leading to further objections. The Court noted the Revenue's repeated defaults and negligence in adhering to time limits, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural laws and time limits.

3. Seeking Restoration of the Review Petition:
The Court observed that the Review Petition was dismissed due to time bars and delays in compliance. Despite seeking restoration, the Revenue's actions demonstrated negligence and a lack of adherence to legal timelines. The Court highlighted the responsibility of Revenue officials in ensuring proper compliance with legal procedures and time limits, emphasizing the need for diligence in legal matters to protect public interest.

4. Negligence and Callousness on the Part of Revenue Officials:
The Court criticized the Revenue officials for their negligence and callousness in handling legal matters, highlighting the detrimental impact on public interest. Emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal timelines and procedures, the Court dismissed the Notice of Motion, citing the Revenue's failure to demonstrate diligence and responsibility in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Notice of Motion, highlighting the Revenue's repeated defaults, negligence, and failure to comply with legal timelines. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and adherence to legal procedures by Revenue officials to protect public interest and ensure effective legal representation.