TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o their officials can learn a lesson or two from their counterparts or adversaries, namely, the assessees. That Advocates or officials are underpaid or not paid on time and Government matters remain neglected because of several reasons, some of which may be intentional and deliberate, does not mean such explanations have to be necessarily accepted. 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay 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 District Judicial Services is the complaint of Mr. Jhaveri. In the instant case, the Appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were dismissed for noncompliance with the procedural Rules. Those were dismissed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master after his conditional order took effect. 3. To set aside such a conditional order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the Revenue moved two Applications and got them placed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master himself. There was a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 conditional order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The request therein is also to condone the delay in moving such Chamber Orders. 6. We do not think that a separate application other than these Chamber Orders is warranted in the peculiar facts and of this case. If any additional affidavit is to be filed by the Revenue, it shall be filed within two weeks and an advance copy of this affidavit shall be furnished to Mr. Jhaveri. The rejoinder shall be filed within one week thereafter. List these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, 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 2007-2008. In assessment year 2006-2007, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is dated 27th November, 2013. 7. To challenge such an order, the Appeal under Section 260A was filed on 15th May, 2014. 8. There is a specific provision in the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Rule 986 of these Rules reads as under: 986. Rejection of plaint, memo of appeal, execution application and applications and petition of original nature for non-removal of office objections. Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 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 objections. These are thus self operative orders. The initial order dated 21st August, 2014 granted time till 18th September, 2014. Even though the office objections were not removed within initial 30 days, this additional time from 18th September, 2014 was available, even when in this additional time the office objections were not removed, the Appeal stood dismissed. 13. The reason assigned is that there was a restructuring of Income Tax Department Pune. The Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not been set out at all. 18. We do not think that routine or usual causes and reasons which have been now invented, to suit the purpose of the Revenue, should be accepted by this Court. In matters after matters of this nature, it was held in strictest terms that the High Court is not obliged to accept such explanations even if they are coming from the Department of Income Tax or Revenue. If the Income Tax Department is the guardian and protector of public rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
