2018 (3) TMI 1820 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - rejecting the Appellant s appeal for non-removal of office objections - seeking condonation of delay of 286 days in seeking to set aside the self-operating order passed by the Prothonotary Senior Master - HELD THAT - We find that at the time of passing of the order dated 12 th January 2016 by the Prothonotary Senior Master the appellants were represented. The affidavits-in-support of the Notices of Motion are bereft of any particulars in as much as the basic date of when the Assessing Officer came to know of the dismissal of the Appeals for non-removal of office objections is even not mentioned therein. The Affidavits-in-support is most casual and there is no explanation even attempted to be offered for the delay. As decided in M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2017 (8) TMI 1357 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT no explanation for the delay of 1371 days and if for all these years the Revenue officials have not noticed the lodging filing or pendency of an appeal a conditional order of the Registry then it must set its own house in order by sacking and removing the delinquent and negligent officials or penalising them otherwise so as to sub-serve larger public interest. If they are found to be hand-in-glove with the assessee and adopt such tactics deliberately then we do not think that the Court is responsible for the same. All the three Notices of Motion are dismissed .

Summary

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.