2018 (3) TMI 532 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of 632 days delay - rejection of the Appeal for non-removal of office objections - Held that - We have perused the Affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. It does not indicate the date when the applicant came to know about the rejection of the Appeal for non-removal of office objections. The Affidavit-insupport is bereft of any particulars. It is most casual and even the date when the deponent came to know of the rejection of the Appeal is not mentioned. There is no explanation even attempted to be offered for the delay.

Summary

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

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought condonation of a 632-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated January 14, 2016. The order rejected the petitioner's appeal for failing to address office objections by February 12, 2016. The Court noted that the Affidavit-in-support did not specify when the applicant learned of the rejection, lacking crucial details and explanations for the delay. Citing a previous case, the Court emphasized the responsibility of officials in following up legal cases and criticized the negligence and lack of vigilance on the part of Revenue officials. Despite this, the current application failed to provide adequate particulars or address the Court's previous observations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Notice of Motion due to the lack of explanation for the delay.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely action and diligence in legal matters, particularly in addressing office objections and following up on appeals. It highlights the Court's expectation for responsible behavior from officials involved in legal cases, emphasizing the need for proper oversight and proactive measures to avoid delays and negligence. The Court's decision to dismiss the Notice of Motion serves as a reminder of the consequences of failing to provide sufficient explanations for delays in legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle of accountability and diligence in legal practice.