2018 (3) TMI 533 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reason for delay - Held that - We find that on 14th January, 2016 when the impugned order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master was passed, the appellant was represented by the Managing Clerk and its Advocate. The Affidavit-insupport seeking condonation of delay is bereft of any particulars. The Affidavit also does not mention the date when the deponent, Assessing Officer learnt about the dismissal of the Appeals. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Advocate who was appearing for the appellant had not kept the Assessing Officer informed of the order dated 14th January, 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. The Affidavit is most casual and there has been no attempt to explain the delay of 632 days in removing the office objections. Affidavit-in-support of the present Notice of Motion which has been taken out in December, 2017 has completely ignored the observations of the Court and makes no attempt to explain the delay. No reason to condone the delay. The Notices of Motion are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in seeking to set aside a self-operating order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the High Court, Bombay.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the applicant sought condonation of a 632-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order issued by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the High Court. The order directed the appellants to remove office objections within four weeks, failing which the Appeals would stand dismissed. The court noted that the appellant was represented by the Managing Clerk and its Advocate when the impugned order was passed. The Affidavit seeking condonation of delay lacked specific details, such as the date when the Assessing Officer learned about the dismissal of the Appeals. The court observed that the Affidavit was casual and failed to explain the significant delay in addressing the office objections. Despite a previous decision by the same court emphasizing the responsibility of Revenue officials in legal matters, the Affidavit in this case did not address the delay adequately.

The court referred to a previous case where it criticized Revenue officials for negligence and lack of vigilance in legal proceedings. The court emphasized that officials should take necessary actions and not expect leniency from the court for their lapses. Despite this previous ruling, the Affidavit in the present case did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in addressing the office objections. The court highlighted that the observations made in the previous case were ignored in the Affidavit filed for condonation of delay.

Ultimately, the court refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the Notices of Motion seeking condonation. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and responsibility in legal matters, especially for officials handling appeals involving significant tax implications. The court's decision reflects the need for parties to comply with court orders promptly and provide adequate justifications for any delays encountered in legal proceedings.