Nma/139/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 v. Akruti City Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 139 OF 2018 ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1418 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central-3 ..Appellantv/s.Akruti City Ltd. ..Respondent Ms. Padma Divakar,for the Appellant/Original Appellant.Ms. Usha Vishwanathan, for the Respondent. CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, &SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE :- 9[th] MARCH, 2018. P.C. :- This Notice of Motion has been taken out seekingcondonation of delay of 286 days in seeking to set aside the self-operating order dated 12th January, 2016 passed by theProthonotary & Senior Master, rejecting the appellant's appeal fornon-removal of office objections under Rule 986 of the BombayHigh Court (Original Side) Rules. 2 We find that at the time of passing of the order dated12th January, 2016 by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, theappellants were represented before the Prothonotary & Senior Master. The affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion is bereft ofany particulars, in as much as, the basic date of when the AssessingOfficer came to know of the dismissal of the Appeal for non-removalof office objections is even not mentioned therein. The Affidavit-in-support is most casual and there is no explanation even attemptedto be offered for the delay. 3 In fact in identical circumstances, our Court inCommissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Industries Limitedreported in [2017] 84 taxmann. Com 313 (Bombay) had madethe following observations :- “8. We have found that if the number of appeals filedby the Revenue are approximately thousand per year ormore, then, we expect the Revenue to appoint anddepute responsible officials and to follow up the legalcases and matters in this Court. The officers cannot passon the buck to some junior level employees or clericalstaff. This is routinely happening inasmuch as theDepartmental heads have not been attending the casesby taking a periodical review of the proceedings orappeals lodged in this Court. They hand over the papersto Advocates and thereafter are not bothered about theoutcome of these appeals. It is for the Revenue or theDepartment to take the necessary action but they do notfeel obliged to do so. They expect this Court to condoneserious lapses in their functioning by accepting abovecause as sufficient. The cause as set out and theexplanation as forwarded today, on affidavit andbelatedly, reflects total negligence and callousness of theRevenue officials. Their attitude shows that they are notat all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filedby the Department involving a tax effect of crores ofrupees. They expect the Court to be lenient and liberaland pardon them every time. It is this approach of theRevenue officials which is not only strongly deprecated in the earlier order but this Court has refused to upholdit after it was noticed that this is the position in almostevery matter. 9. This is no explanation for the delay of 1371days and if for all these years the Revenue officials havenot noticed the lodging, filing or pendency of an appeal,a conditional order of the Registry, then, it must set itsown house in order by sacking and removing thedelinquent and negligent officials or penalising themotherwise so as to subserve larger public interest. If theyare found to be hand-in-glove with the assessee andadopt such tactics deliberately, then, we do not thinkthat the Court is responsible for the same. The Registrar(O.S.) has been drawing up a list and notifying theappeals regularly and intimating the parties and theirAdvocates through the High Court website that theymust attend to these cases or else all consequencesincluding dismissal without adjudication on merit, willfollow. If this is a known fact to all practisingAdvocates, including the Revenue's Advocates, then, wedo not think that any special treatment can be claimed.” 4Inspite of the above, the present Notice of Motion filedtaken out on 22nd December, 2017 is bereft of any particulars insupport of the Motion, much less, in the context of the aboveobservation. 5Accordingly, the Notice of Motiondismissed. Noorder as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J)