2018 (6) TMI 1325 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - condonation of 389 days delay in seeking to set aside the self operating order - Held that - No particulars of the date and the manner in which the Assessing Officer became aware of the dismissal of the rejection of the appeal is mentioned in the affidavit in support of the motion. The affidavit further records that advocate on record thus, somehow managed to contact the concerned person of the Income Tax Department and the status of the present appeal came to be disclosed to the Income Tax Department . We are unable to understand the above statement as it is from an Assessing Officer and not from the person who claims not to have been able to contact the person in the Income Tax Department. No bonafide explanation to condone the undue delay.

Summary

Issues: Application for condonation of delay in setting aside a self-operating order.

Analysis:
1. The application sought condonation of a 389-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated January 5, 2017, rejecting the appellant's appeal for failure to remove office objections by February 2, 2017.

2. The affidavit filed by the Income Tax Officer stated that the objections could not be removed on time, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the affidavit lacked specific details regarding how and when the officer became aware of the dismissal, raising questions about the explanation provided.

3. The affidavit failed to provide reasons for non-compliance with the court's order and did not offer a supported explanation for the delay in removing office objections, thereby lacking the necessary particulars for condonation of delay.

4. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., the court emphasized the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for delay, especially for government bodies. The court stressed that condonation of delay should not be a routine benefit and that government departments must perform their duties diligently.

5. Citing a previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Ltd., the court highlighted the responsibility of revenue officials to actively manage legal cases and not pass on responsibilities to junior staff. The court criticized the negligence and lack of interest displayed by revenue officials in pursuing appeals, emphasizing the need for vigilant and committed handling of cases.

6. Based on the observations and precedents mentioned, the court found no genuine or bonafide explanation to justify condoning the undue delay in this case.

7. Consequently, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, refusing to condone the delay due to the lack of a valid explanation for the delay in compliance with the court's order.