9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer on 24th August, 2005. The scrutiny report was forwarded by the Assessing Officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3rd October, 2005 and subsequently the Commissioner of Income Tax sent the report to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 13th October, 2005. On 19th October, 2005, the Assessing Officer received approval from the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. That is how the papers were forwarded for drafting the said appeal on 3rd January, 2008 and it was returned on 25th February, 2008. Thereafter, the appeal memo was sent for approval to Commissioner of Income Tax on 3rd March, 2008. The date or time for filing of the appeal expired on 14th January, 2007 whereas it came to be filed on 15th March, 2008. That is how the delay occurred in filing of the appeal. 3] We must at once clarify that we are not concerned with all these aspects and the explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal. Suffice it to note that such explanations are now being offered as an after thought and to cover up the lapses, which we note hereafter. 4] The appeal filed belatedly was placed before a Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra and on the earlier occasion we passed a detailed order and enabling Mr. Malhotra to take instructions. The detailed order was necessitated because the assessee filed a reply to these notice of motions in which the attention of this Court was invited to the events that took place in this Court after the lodging of the appeal and particularly the explanation. In para9 of the affidavit in reply of the assessee which has been affirmed by Shri Madhavlal N. Pittle , it is categorically stated that the appellantrevenue was represented on 17th June, 2009 when the conditional order was passed by this Court as well as on 23rd July, 2009 when the appeal was dismissed. When the appellant had pointed out from record as to how the revenue or their counsel failed and neglected to ascertain the status of the appeal nothing has been clarified. The reference to a letter dated 26th June, 2012 (now stated to be erroneous), therefore, should not be improving the case of the revenue any further and this is the stand taken by the assessee in affidavit in reply and from paras9 to 11 of the same. 8] The assessee's counsel Ms. Vissanjee on the earlier occasion had invited our attention to several d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of revenue and officers work in their own casual way that the Courts cannot condone the delay is now the principle and which has been reiterated from time to time. We do not find that this situation is in any way different than the one noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. 11] In the case of Office of the Chief Post Master Ceneral & Ors. V/s. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1506, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest." 12] Additionally, we find that there is complete silence as to why in para6 of the affidavit a statement is made that the department was unaware of the Courts order and at the same time annexing photo copies of the order passed on 17th June, 2009 and 23rd July, 2009 both of which indicate the presence of the revenue/de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions of Mr. Malhotra that the two officers representing the revenue have admitted the lapses on the part of the revenue. We find that their presence in the Court to own the lapse and deficiency will not assist and the revenue in any manner when they filed affidavits and made solemn statements before this Court but which are contrary to the record. Once the successors to those who were incharge in 200809 are trying to cover up the past lapses, then, it is evident that the whole attempt is to ensure that none is ever held responsible and accountable for these state of affairs. The Revenue's notice of motion and seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition does not deserves to be granted. The officials ought to realize that the Court cannot assist the departments merely on the plea of larger public interest or protection of public revenue being involved. If that is the reason for which they feel that the delay deserves to be condoned, then, they ought to have realized that the same warrants their acting diligently. The same also requires them to act swiftly and by upholding the status and dignity of the office. Public officers have a public duty to perform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
