2017 (10) TMI 180 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of revenue appeal by the Prothonotary and Senior Master for noncompliance with the procedural Rules - Ambit and scope of powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960 - Held that - To avoid any controversy involving a senior official of this Court, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the orders of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of restoration of these Appeals and registering them. We place the Revenue s Notices of Motion seeking to quash and set aside the initial order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master invoking Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960. We post the Chamber Orders of the Revenue and treat them as request to this Court to restore the Appeals to the file for consideration on merits by setting aside the conditional order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The request therein is also to condone the delay in moving such Chamber Orders.

Summary

Issues:
- Ambit and scope of powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master
- Dismissal of Appeals for noncompliance with procedural rules
- Restoration of Appeals to the court's file
- Lack of hearing given to the assessee
- Setting aside the orders of restoration
- Chamber Orders and delay condonation

Ambit and Scope of Powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master:
The judgment highlights a Full Bench judgment concerning the powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960. It is noted that the current Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial officer and is not part of the District Judicial Services, which raises concerns. The Appeals of the Revenue for specific assessment years were dismissed due to procedural noncompliance by the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

Dismissal of Appeals for Noncompliance with Procedural Rules:
The Appeals for assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were dismissed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master due to noncompliance with procedural Rules. The dismissal was based on a conditional order that had taken effect. Subsequently, the Revenue filed Applications to set aside these conditional orders, leading to objections regarding the delay and the manner in which the restoration was being pursued.

Restoration of Appeals to the Court's File:
The Revenue moved Applications to set aside the conditional order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master and restore the Appeals to the court's file. However, objections were raised due to significant delays and lack of proper hearing given to the assessee in the restoration process. The objections were not adequately addressed in the restoration order, leading to objections raised by the opposing party.

Lack of Hearing Given to the Assessee:
There were complaints regarding the lack of a proper hearing given to the assessee in the restoration process. The objections raised by the assessee were not adequately considered, and there were concerns about the restoration being done routinely without proper acknowledgment of the objections raised.

Setting Aside the Orders of Restoration:
To address the concerns and avoid controversies, the court decided to set aside the orders of restoration made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Revenue's Notices of Motion were considered to quash the initial order and to restore the Appeals for further consideration on merits, while also seeking condonation of the delay in moving such Chamber Orders.

Chamber Orders and Delay Condonation:
The court deemed it unnecessary to require a separate application other than the Chamber Orders for restoration. Additional affidavits were allowed to be filed by the Revenue within a specified timeframe, with an opportunity for the opposing party to respond. The Chamber Orders for restoration of dismissed Appeals were scheduled for a specific date, with a decision to adjourn other related Appeals for further assessment years.