2017 (9) TMI 383 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - removal of office onjection - whether Revenue/ Department was not aware of the objections? - Held that - It is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals. The Appeals are dismissed for nonremoval of office objections. This Court and it s Registry derives no pleasure in dismissing the Appeals without adjudication on merits. There is a certain sanctity attached to the procedural rules. Even in the present case, more than one opportunity was granted to remove the office objections. This Court, on its judicial side cannot routinely set aside the orders of the Registry. The proceural rules cannot be set at naught or rendered redundant merely because the Government or Revenue is the litigant. The office objections being not removed within the time specified, all consequences under the rules follow. Pertinently, neither the procedural rules, nor the power of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to dismiss the Appeal as above or refuse it s registration are challenged. Hence the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in challenging an order, restoration of appeal to court's file, dismissal of appeal due to non-removal of office objections, sufficiency of cause shown for delay.

Condonation of Delay: The Notice of Motion sought condonation of a 1128-day delay in challenging an order dated 1st November, 2014. The appeal was lodged on 14th February, 2014, and objections regarding deficiencies were raised on 1st April, 2014. Despite being granted time to rectify these issues, the appeal was dismissed on 19th June, 2014, and later restored with a deadline of 24th November, 2014. However, the appeal remained dismissed due to non-compliance. The court found the explanation for the delay to be false, attributing it to gross negligence and callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. The court emphasized the importance of procedural rules and dismissed the motion, stating that the rules cannot be disregarded, especially by the government or revenue as litigants.

Restoration of Appeal: The appeal was initially dismissed on 19th June, 2014, due to non-removal of office objections. Despite the Revenue's Advocate's application, the appeal was not reinstated within the specified time frame. The court noted that the Revenue officials were aware of the conditional orders but failed to take necessary steps to rectify the situation. The court criticized the Revenue's attempt to blame procedural rules for the dismissal of their appeals and emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements before an appeal can proceed to admission or final hearing.

Dismissal of Appeal: The dismissal of the appeal was attributed to the failure to remove office objections within the specified time frame. The court highlighted that the dismissal was a result of the Revenue's negligence and lack of diligence in following procedural rules. The court reiterated that compliance with procedural rules is essential for a matter to be considered ready for admission or final hearing. Despite granting multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiencies, the court emphasized that it cannot routinely set aside orders of the Registry and that all consequences under the rules must be followed if office objections are not addressed within the stipulated time.

Sufficiency of Cause Shown for Delay: The court found the cause shown for the delay in challenging the order to be insufficient and lacking in bona fides. The court deemed the Revenue's explanation as false and criticized their attempt to seek restoration of the dismissed appeal based on erroneous grounds. The court emphasized that the procedural rules, as well as the authority of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to dismiss appeals for non-compliance, were not challenged. Consequently, the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay was dismissed by the court.