2018 (6) TMI 967 - HC - Income Tax

Notice of Motion for recalling the order - condonation of delay of 374 days in taking out the application and for setting aside the order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules rejecting the Revenue s appeal - Held that - As relying upon the judgement of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation 2017 (1) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it is held that in any case, even if for the purposes of this application, we ignore the fact that we had passed orders earlier, the present application would still be liable to be dismissed - thus this is for the reason that the genesis of the present Notice of Motion is the order dated 9th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master which has granted time to remove office objections on or before 9th March, 2017 failing which the petitioner appeal was to stand rejected for non removal of office objections. The applicant Revenue failed to remove office objection resulting in the appeal itself being rejected by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Hence we see no reason to condone the delay of 374 days in taking out this application.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in setting aside the order dated 9th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotry and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought condonation of a 374-day delay in setting aside the order rejecting the appeal due to failure to remove objections within the stipulated time. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the objections were not removed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2. The affidavit claimed administrative difficulties, including staff shortage, as the reason for the delay. However, the court found this explanation insufficient, emphasizing that mere administrative difficulties cannot justify the failure to remove objections without specific details.
3. Referring to a similar case, the court highlighted that administrative difficulties cannot be a valid reason for filing a defective appeal and failing to act promptly. The court stressed the importance of diligence and commitment from government departments in legal matters.
4. Citing another case, the court criticized the Revenue for negligence in handling appeals, expecting responsible officials to follow up on legal cases instead of delegating to junior staff. The court condemned the lack of vigilance and interest in pursuing cases involving significant tax amounts.
5. Based on the observations and precedents, the court declined to condone the 374-day delay in the application, ultimately dismissing the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the court's reasoning and the legal principles applied in the decision regarding the condonation of delay in the mentioned case.