9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notary & Senior Master. The Affidavit is most casual and there has been no attempt to explain the delay of 632 days in removing the office objections. Affidavit-in-support of the present Notice of Motion which has been taken out in December, 2017 has completely ignored the observations of the Court and makes no attempt to explain the delay. No reason to condone the delay. The Notices of Motion are accordingly dismissed. - NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 101, 113, 117, 125, 131 OF 2018, INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 1231, 1228, 1232, 1233, 1230 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - M. S. Sanklecha And Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ. Ms. Padma Divakar, Advocate for the applicant Ms. Vipul Joshi a/w. Mr. Sameer Dalal, Advocate for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 3. Infact this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Industries Limited reported in [2017] 84 taxmann. Com 313 (Bombay) had in similar circumstances, made the following observations :- 8. We have found that if the number of appeals filed by the Revenue are approximately thousand per year or more, then, we expect the Revenue to appoint and depute responsible officials and to follow up the legal cases and matters in this Court. The officers cannot pass on the buck to some junior level employees or clerical staff. This is routinely happening inasmuch as the Departmental heads have not been attending the cases by taking a periodical review of the proceedings or appeals lodged in this Court. They hand over the papers to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifying the appeals regularly and intimating the parties and their Advocates through the High Court website that they must attend to these cases or else all consequences including dismissal without adjudication on merit, will follow. If this is a known fact to all practising Advocates, including the Revenue's Advocates, then, we do not think that any special treatment can be claimed. 4. It is sad that even after the aforesaid decision which was rendered by this Court on 22nd August, 2017, the Affidavit-in-support of the present Notice of Motion which has been taken out in December, 2017 has completely ignored the observations of the Court and makes no attempt to explain the delay, much less, in the above context. 5. In the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
