2015 (9) TMI 78 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 1203 days - affidavit in support of the notice of motion states that the reason for the delay was the change in the panel of advocates representing the revenue with effect from June 2008 - Held that - The affidavit in support does not inspire confidence. It states the appeal was dismissed on 17 April 2007 while the advocate representing the revenue in this case was removed from the panel in June 2008. Thus there is no explanation for the period of more than 1 Year and 2 Months from the date of the dismissal of the appeal and removal of the advocate. It does not state the date on which the deponent of the affidavit came to know of the order of this Court dated 17 April 2007 dismissing it s appeal. The aforesaid date would be the primary date around which would revolve the application for condonation of delay and consideration of the reasons for the delay. Besides no particulars have been listed out in the affidavit to point out, what efforts were made, if any, to be in touch with their counsel appearing in respect of the appeal and the result of their attempts at contacting the advocate. The explanation offered for the delay is without any basis particularly because the date of coming to know of the dismissal of the appeal is not stated in the affidavit. The manner in which the affidavit in support has been filed display a casual approach. Notice of motion as filed by the revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in restoring the appeal dismissed under Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules.

Analysis:
The notice of motion sought to restore an appeal dismissed under Rule 986 of the High Court (Original Side) Rules and requested condonation of a 1203-day delay. The affidavit in support of the notice attributed the delay to a change in the panel of advocates representing the revenue, leading to a lack of communication and awareness about the dismissal. However, the court found the affidavit lacking as it did not specify the date the deponent learned about the dismissal, crucial for assessing the reasons for the delay. Moreover, no efforts were detailed regarding attempts to contact the advocate or the outcome of such endeavors. The court concluded that the explanation for the delay was unsubstantiated and criticized the casual approach in filing the affidavit.

In light of the deficiencies in the explanation provided for the delay, the court held that the reasons presented in the affidavit were unsatisfactory. Consequently, the notice of motion filed by the revenue was dismissed.