The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -16…Applicant v. Order

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1990 OF 2017 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1242 OF 2014 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -16…Applicant/ Appellant Versus Ravi Baldevraj Chadha…Respondent ---------- Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Applicant/Appellant. ---------- CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 19 January 2018 ORDER : 1.This Notice of Motion seeks condonation of delay of1068 days in taking out this Motion for the purpose of setting 1/4 9-NMA-1990-17.doc aside the order of the Prothonotary & Senior Master dated 25September 2014 which dismissed the Applicant's Appeal by aself operating order on 9 October 2014. 2.The Affidavit dated 12 October 2017 in Support ofthe Notice of Motion is filed by Mr. Satish Reddy, AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, seeking to explain the delay. Wenote the very casual manner adopted by the Revenue in settingout reason to condone the delay of 1068 days on its part. TheAffidavit in support on oath states that the impugned order ofthe Tribunal which is being challenged is dated 4 July 2014when in fact, the order passed by the Tribunal is dated 19February 2014. Further the Affidavit indicates that the time tohave objections removed and have the Appeal numbered wasgranted till 17 April 2015 by the Prothonotary & Senior Master,when in fact the order of the Prothonotary & Senior Mastergranted time till 9 October 2014 to remove the office objections. 3.Besides the Affidavit in Support gives no particulars 2/4 9-NMA-1990-17.doc in support of its explanation that the delay took place becausethe Advocate's clerk had to leave due to some medical ailment.All that the Affidavit states is that the Advocate's Clerk couldonly attend the office on 17 April 2015. Thus, the Affidavitstates that there was a delay leading to taking out thisApplication on 13 October 2017. 4.From the above, it is clear that there is no indicationof the date when the Advocate's Clerk became unwell nor thenature of ailment nor there is any explanation on the part of thedepartment of what it did after having come to know of thedismissal of the Appeal on 17 April 2015, except stating that theAdvocate's Clerk could not contact the concerned person in viewof restructuring of the Income Tax Department. This again iswithout any particulars to explain the delay in taking out thisNotice of Motion on 12 October 2017 nor even indicating thedate the Officer got to know of the dismissal of the Appeal on 25September 2014 and how he got to know of it. 3/4 9-NMA-1990-17.doc 5.We are liberal in granting condonation of delayapplication, as it is best that the dispute is adjudicated onmerits. Nevertheless one cannot loose sight of the opposite sidewho was led to believe that the impugned order of the Tribunalhas been accepted. Moreover, a condonation of delayapplication even by the Revenue cannot be allowed in theabsence of reasons to support the delay (Please see office of theChief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media (India)Ltd. & Anr. 348 ITR 7.) 6.In view of above, particularly the attitude of theRevenue in not even indicating any attempt on its part toexplain its conduct viz-a-viz the delay. We find no reason tocondone the delay. 7.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 4/4