2021 (9) TMI 780 - HC - Income Tax

Removal of office objections - HELD THAT - We find that Applicant has devoted four pages only to give details of certain connected proceedings which were pending before the Tribunal. Applicant has devoted three paragraphs to comply with the directions passed by this Court in its order dated 10th August, 2021. In paragraph 5, the Applicant has made a general statement that incumbent AO came to know that the Appeal filed by the department on the issue of existence of M.N. Navale Bigger HUF, the Hon ble High Court had dismissed the Appeal for want of removal of office objections - We are informed that Mr. Vipul Bajpayee is junior standing counsel today for the department. Moreover, the Applicant s explanation for non removal of objection contains only conjectures. He says that in between change in the standing counsel of the department may be the reason for non appearance ; there is a possibility of communication gap can be between standing counsel and then AO. , the new officer may not have been fully aware of dismissal of this case. As stated in the Affidavit in Reply, the department was constantly participating in the proceedings before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the existence of M.N. Navale Bigger HUF. Therefore, it is inconceivable that during the period 2012 19, the Authority never once enquired about the status of the Appeal before this Court. We are not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the Applicant to restore the Appeal that was dismissed pursuant to order dated 16th March, 2016.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing application for restoration, non-compliance with court orders leading to dismissal of appeal, lack of satisfactory explanation for non-removal of office objections, failure to provide adequate details and affidavits.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the significant delay of 1419 days in filing the application for restoration. The Applicant was directed on 28th August 2014 to remove office objections within four weeks, failing which the appeal was dismissed on 16th March 2016. The Court noted that despite repeated directions, the office objections were not removed, and there was a lack of compliance. The Applicant's explanation of "due to inadvertence" was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to further directions for filing a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance.

Another crucial issue highlighted in the judgment is the Applicant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the non-removal of office objections within the specified time frame. The Court emphasized the lack of clarity in the Applicant's responses, especially regarding the involvement of the department's representatives and the communication gaps cited as reasons for non-compliance. The Court found the explanations provided by the Applicant to be speculative and lacking concrete evidence or affidavits to support the claims made.

Furthermore, the judgment addresses the inadequacy of details and affidavits provided by the Applicant in the further affidavit. The Court observed that the Applicant primarily focused on unrelated proceedings and failed to provide substantial information regarding the specific issue of non-removal of office objections leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court highlighted the absence of crucial affidavits from the department's representatives, which could have shed light on the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance.

Ultimately, the Court decided not to grant the relief sought by the Applicant to restore the appeal that was dismissed in 2016. The decision was based on the overall lack of satisfactory explanations, insufficient evidence, and the failure to meet the court's directions and requirements. The application for restoration was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance and providing clear, substantiated explanations in legal proceedings to avoid adverse consequences.