2018 (3) TMI 1663 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay of 171 days - removal of office objections - Held that - This application had came up earlier on 9th February 2017. On that date after the application was heard for some time Ms. Divakar learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue took time to file further affidavit in support of the delay in taking out this Notice of Motion. Revenue has filed a further affidavit of Shri Puneetinder Singh Walia Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax dated 14th February 2018. In the affidavit they attempt to explain the delay from 13th July 2017 till the date of filing the Motion on 22nd August 2017. There is no attempt to explain the delay in taking out this application from 22nd February 2017 to 13th July 2017. We find that the earlier affidavit in support also does not give any explanation for not having moved this application earlier when undisputedly the Appeal stood dismissed on 2nd February 2017. The attempt on the part of the Revenue to explain the delay is most casual. No explanation has been offered for the same. No reason has been made out to condone the delay

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in setting aside a self-operating order

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 171-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated 5th January, 2017. The order directed the Applicant to address office objections by 2nd February, 2017, failing which the appeal would stand rejected under Rule 986 of the High Court (O.S.) Rules. The Applicant failed to comply with this directive, leading to the present application.

The application was initially heard on 9th February, 2017, during which Ms. Divakar, representing the Revenue, requested time to file a further affidavit explaining the delay. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed by Shri Puneetinder Singh Walia, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 14th February, 2018, attempting to clarify the delay from 13th July, 2017, until the filing of the Motion on 22nd August, 2017. However, no explanation was provided for the delay between 22nd February, 2017, and 13th July, 2017, which remained unaddressed.

The court noted that the explanations provided by the Revenue for the delay were insufficient and lacked detail. The attempt to justify the delay was considered casual, with no substantial reasons presented. Consequently, the court found no valid grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking the setting aside of the self-operating order dated 5th January, 2017.