Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 1820 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
Condonation of delay in seeking to set aside a self-operating order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, rejecting the appeal for non-removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three Notices of Motion filed to seek condonation of a 286-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated 12th January, 2016, issued by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, which rejected the appellant's appeal for non-removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. The court noted that at the time of the order in question, the appellants were represented. However, the affidavits-in-support of the Notices of Motion lacked essential particulars, such as the date when the Assessing Officer became aware of the dismissal of the appeals. The court found the affidavits to be casual, devoid of any explanation for the delay, and lacking in detail.

In a reference to a previous case, the court highlighted the need for responsible officials to handle legal matters diligently, especially when significant tax implications are involved. The court emphasized that the Revenue Department should appoint and supervise officials to manage legal cases effectively, rather than delegating responsibilities to junior staff and neglecting follow-ups. The court criticized the negligent attitude of Revenue officials towards pursuing appeals, emphasizing the importance of vigilance in handling cases involving substantial tax amounts. The court expressed disapproval of the officials' expectation for leniency from the court due to their lapses and negligence.

Based on the above observations and the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay in the present case, the court dismissed all three Notices of Motion, without imposing any costs. The judgment underscores the importance of diligence and responsibility in handling legal matters, particularly in cases with significant financial implications, and emphasizes the need for parties to provide adequate and detailed explanations for delays in legal proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates