9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Revenue has failed to comply with the office objections or the rules in that behalf - Time was given to comply with that and it is only thereafter that the Court visited the Revenue with the consequences in law - though the appeal stood dismissed and without any further reference to the Court in 2009, the revenue did not lodge a Review Petition until January 2013 and to be precise the lodging date is 22nd January, 2013 - The Review Petition also remained unattended and we have from the original record found that there were office objections and which were to the knowledge of the advocate filing the Review Petition - the explanation is offered for this enormous delay and which is to be contained in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The delay does not deserves to be condoned - 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 2008-09 are trying to cover up the past lapses, then, it is evident that the whole attempt is to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. C. Daga and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. P. Devadhar (as Their Lordships then were) and in the presence of the advocates a conditional order was passed on 17th June, 2009 directing the revenue to remove the office objections within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the said order after which the appeal would stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. The matter was again listed on 23rd July, 2009 and since the office objections were not removed, the appeal came to be dismissed. 5] On the earlier occasion, and even today, our attention was invited by the counsel for the revenue to para6 of this affidavit in support which reads as under: 6. I say that I first became aware of the dismissal of the above appeal from the letter of Advocate Vimal Gupta dated 26.06.2012 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax4, Mumbai. I say that Advocate Vimal Gupta, while appearing in Appeal No.ITXA/6895/2010, noticed that the above Appeal has been dismissed for condonation of delay in appeal and nonremoval of office objections. I submit that immediately steps have been taken to take out this Notice of Motion. Hence there is a delay of 1248 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted our attention to several discrepancies and errors of dates in the affidavit in support of the revenue and submitted that these lapses and by large administrative machinery do not afford a ground to condone the delay, they cannot constitute sufficient cause and particularly when the explanation is not bonafide. The same exhibits complete negligence and that is how the assessee's stand was reiterated in the oral submissions. 9] Noting all this, we gave an opportunity to Shri Malhotra to offer an explanation as to how such statements can be made in the affidavit in support in the teeth of the admitted and undisputed Court record. 10] The additional affidavit has been now filed and stated to be by one Shri Virender Singh, who is successor of the earlier deponent Shri Umesh Agarwal. This fresh affidavit affirmed on 16th July, 2014 maintains complete silence with regard to para6 of the affidavit which we have reproduced above and the contents of which have been disputed and denied by the assesee. We do not see how involving the advocate in all this would carry the case of the revenue any further. We do not think such an explanation and coming belatedly as an afterthought, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which indicate the presence of the revenue/department counsel when these orders were passed. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Court matters are taken lightly and casually and a impression has been created that the State or the Revenue seeks to get away or take a easy route of offering routine explanations and blaming officers or their advocates. If the cause shown cannot be said to be bonafide and demonstrating utter negligence and callousness, then, we do not see how it can assist the revenue any longer. The appeal which is lodged in the year 2008 remained on the file of this Court, and was pending for removal of office objections. None bothered to have them removed until this Court noted in June 2009 that the Revenue has failed to comply with the office objections or the rules in that behalf. Time was given to comply with that and it is only thereafter that the Court visited the Revenue with the consequences in law. Further, though the appeal stood dismissed and without any further reference to the Court in 2009, the revenue did not lodge a Review Petition until January 2013 and to be precise the lodging date is 22nd January, 2013. The Review Petition also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
