The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1889 OF 2011 ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.345 OF 2007 … The Commissioner of Income Tax-Vvs. ...Applicant Kinetic Engineering Ltd. ...Respondent … Mr.Sureshkumar for the Applicant. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 12 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. Heard Mr.Sureshkumar appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Application. There is a delay of 1247 days for moving a Motion. The Appeal was lodged by the Revenue in this Court, as per the endorsement of the Registry, on 22 February 2006. Thereafter several office objections were notified and they were purported to be complied with. The Appeal was listed before the Prothonotary & Sr.Master of this Court and a conditional order was passed on 6 February 2007. Since the conditional order was not complied with, the Appeal stood dismissed by a self-operative order. nma-1889-11.doc 2.The reasons assigned in the affidavit in support and of blaming the Panel Counsel are not sufficient to condone the enormous delay of 1247 days. When the earlier advocate was assigned the brief, since when he ceased to be part of the Panel of Advocates appearing for the Department, since when the other advocate took over, when was the brief was assigned to him and what steps did he take upon such assignment have not been indicated. There are absolutely no particulars, much less any elaboration, which would enable this Court to hold that the usual reason of administrative difficulties is genuine and bonafide. Barring the usual reasons, there is nothing in the affidavit, which would enable us to conclude that the Department made genuine and bonafide efforts to comply with the conditional order of the Registry. 3.In such circumstances, the Motion is dismissed. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)