2015 (8) TMI 851 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - dismissal of the appeal for nonremoval of office objection - Held that - It is very clear from the facts as stated that the applicants were aware of its appeal having being dismissed on 23 July 2009 itself when they were represented. After that date, the revenue took out a review petition on 29 October 2009 which also they did not prosecute. The affidavit in support of notice of motion gives no reason as to why the revenue did not take out the present notice of motion earlier to 12 June 2012. No explanation is offered as to why even after knowledge of the order dated 23 July 2009 the applicants took no steps to take out the present notice of motion which was registered on 12 June 2012. As no satisfactory explanation has been offered nor any responsibility fixed for this gross delay of 980 days, we do not see any reason to condone the delay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for recall of an order dated 23 July 2009 passed by the Bombay High Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for the recall of an order dated 23 July 2009 by the revenue. The order in question did not dismiss the revenue's appeals but stated that no further directions were necessary, and the earlier order stood. The court found the application for recall misconceived as the order did not dismiss the appeals. The conduct of the revenue was also scrutinized, noting that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay of 980 days in taking out the present notice of motion. Despite being aware of the dismissal of the appeal in 2009, the revenue failed to take timely action, including not prosecuting a review petition. As a result, the court dismissed the notice of motion, emphasizing the lack of justification for the delay and declining to condone it.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely action and diligence in legal proceedings. It highlights that parties must promptly address court directives and not unduly delay proceedings. The court's decision not to condone the delay serves as a reminder of the need for parties to act promptly and responsibly in pursuing legal remedies. The judgment also emphasizes the significance of providing satisfactory explanations for delays in legal proceedings to ensure the efficient administration of justice.