9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. The Registry has dismissed the Revenue's Appeal for noncompliance with the procedural rules, namely, the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. 2. From the record, we find that the appellant has been casual and negligent in attending the matter. When this Income Tax Appeal for the assessment year 2005-2006 was filed by Mrs. Padma Divakar, after its lodgin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. The Revenue has woken up only in the month of June, 2017 and has lodged the instant Motion seeking to quash and set aside the order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master dated 13th November, 2014, but which is not the effective date, namely, the order of rejection came into effect on 11th December, 2014. There is a delay of 892 days in moving the present Notice of Motion. 4. There is no cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No.1640 of 2014 for the assessment year 20052006 came up on board on 8th June, 2017, that the Advocate, who had filed the instant/present Appeal, informed the Revenue of the conditional order, can be termed as a sufficient cause. That cause which is bonafide, truthful and reasonable alone can be accepted. This explanation or reason fails to inspire the confidence of this Court. 6. We had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the subsequent Assessment Year, then, on the date of its presentation, the Revenue officials were aware that it had filed an Appeal for the prior Assessment Year and interest of justice demands that both are tagged and heard together. The same Advocate has been instructed to file both Appeals. Thus, the version is not reliable at all.
7. As a result, we dismiss this Notice of Motion. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
