9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enior Master rejecting the applicant's appeal for non removal of office objection. Thus considering this application would be an academic exercise as even if the prayer of recall of the order dated 19th August, 2016 is granted, yet the earlier orders of dismissal of the appeal would stand unaffected. In any case, even if for the purposes of this application, we ignore the fact that we had passed orders earlier, the present application would still be liable to be dismissed. This is for the reason that the genesis of the present Notice of Motion is the order dated 19th November, 2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master which has granted time to remove office objections on or before 17th December, 2015 failing which the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust, 2016 and does not make any prayer for recall of an earlier order dated 22nd April, 2016 of this Court or for setting aside the order of this Court passed on 19th November, 2015 by the Prothonotary and Senior Master rejecting the applicant's appeal for non removal of office objection. Thus considering this application would be an academic exercise as even if the prayer of recall of the order dated 19th August, 2016 is granted, yet the earlier orders of dismissal of the appeal would stand unaffected. 3. The applicant's appeal to this Court from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rejected on 19th November, 2015 by the Prothonotary Senior Master, under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. Thus the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfy a Review of order dated 19th August, 2016 is not satisfied i.e. it is not the case of the applicant Revenue that any new evidence was discovered after the passing of the order or that there is any mistake apparent on record which would justify review of the order dated 19th August, 2016. The application is only seeking an opportunity to argue on facts which would have been urged earlier but not urged when order dated 19th August, 2016 was passed on the aforesaid ground alone, this application is being dismissed. 6. In any case, even if for the purposes of this application, we ignore the fact that we had passed orders earlier, the present application would still be liable to be dismissed. This is for the reason that the genesis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides, 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
