9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Though these Appeals have been assigned registration numbers, the background in which registration has been done is noted in our order passed on 4th September, 2017. That order reads as under: "1. When these Appeals were placed before us, a very strange development has been brought to our notice by Mr. Jhaveri. 2. Although there is a Full Bench judgment in the field with regard to the ambit and scope of powers of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, particularly under Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960, it is common ground that the present Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court is not a judicial officer. He is not from the hierarchy of the District Judges and forming part of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their back, when the initial objection was also filed in writing against setting aside of the conditional order, there could not have been such restoration. 5. To avoid any controversy involving a senior official of this Court, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the orders of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of restoration of these Appeals and registering them. We place the Revenue's Notices of Motion seeking to quash and set aside the initial order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master invoking Rules 985 and 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1960. We post the Chamber Orders of the Revenue and treat them as request to this Court to restore the Appeals to the file for consideration on merits by setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and particularly when they were supported by the assessee. 4. Now, on instructions, Mr. Walve states that he does not wish to file any further affidavit. Meaning thereby, the reason or explanation which has been set out in the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Orders be construed by this Court as sufficient cause. He has nothing further to add. 5. The Chamber Order, and for illustration, moved in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1050 of 2014, now numbered as Income Tax Appeal No. 1038 of 2017, makes an interesting reading. 6. It is common ground that this Appeal is brought to challenge an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune for the assessment year 2006-2007 and the further Appeal is for the year 2007-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objections were notified in this case as well and since they were not removed, on 18th September, 2014, an order in terms of these Rules was passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. That took effect on 10th October, 2014. 11. To set aside such an order, an Application is moved on 4th June, 2017. 12. The only explanation that is set out is in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the affidavit of one Mr. Ajay D. Kulkarni, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune. He admits that the matter was listed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master on 21st August, 2014. He passed a conditional order and since the office objections were not removed till 18th September, 2014, thereafter the Appeal was dismissed for non-removal of office obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and time which is gone by was consumed in setting up of the office and thereafter, tracing out files and shifting them to the new independent/dedicated Commissionerate. In that process, some files came to be misplaced. Therefore, on the instructions of the then Commissioner, an audit and inventory was undertaken which took some time and the missing files included one pertaining to this Appeal. 17. All this is hopelessly vague in the sense, none of the statements from paragraph 7 to 13 indicate with relevant details and particulars as to when all this occurred and when this was detected and when the difficulty, if at all, or lapse was rectified. At whose instance all this was done and when the inventory commenced, when was it concluded, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Government and its Departments including the Department of Income Tax is not a special litigant. The law of limitation does not exempt it. If 30 days' time was given to remove office objections, they were not removed and no application was moved within the next 30 days to set aside the conditional order and there is a delay in this case, as is brought on record by the assessee, of 958 days, then, this is no explanation for the same. 19. As a result of the above discussion and finding that the Revenue officials are grossly negligent, we hold that there is no sufficient cause for condoning this enormous delay. The explanation on affidavit is devoid of any particulars, vague ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
