TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court decision criticizes Revenue for procedural lapses, stresses accountability</h1> <h3>DIT (Exemptions), Mumbai Versus M/s. The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd.</h3> DIT (Exemptions), Mumbai Versus M/s. The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. - TMI Issues:Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal for noncompliance with procedural rules - Delay in moving the Notice of Motion to quash the order of rejection - Lack of sufficient cause for the delay - Blame shifting by Revenue officials to the Advocate - Negligence and lackadaisical attitude of Revenue officials - Failure to follow up on the case - Inconsistencies in the explanation provided by the Revenue - Inadequate reasons for not being aware of the conditional order - Consequences of negligence on the part of Revenue officials - Tribunal's order in subsequent assessment years - Tagging and hearing of Appeals for prior and subsequent assessment years together.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Revenue's Appeal due to noncompliance with procedural rules, specifically the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules. The appellant, the Revenue, was found to be negligent in attending to the matter, as highlighted by the court's observation that the Registry had duly noted the deficiencies and defects in the Appeal on 8th August, 2014. Despite being given time to rectify these issues, the Revenue failed to act promptly, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal on 11th December, 2014. The court expected the Revenue to show a sense of urgency in addressing the matter, which was not demonstrated until June 2017, when a Motion was filed to quash the order of rejection.The court noted a significant delay of 892 days in moving the Notice of Motion, with the deponent of the affidavit-in-support failing to provide a sufficient cause for this delay. The court criticized the Revenue officials for their lack of awareness regarding the conditional order and their tendency to shift blame to the Advocate handling the case. The court emphasized the importance of a bonafide, truthful, and reasonable cause for such delays, which was lacking in the explanation provided by the Revenue.Furthermore, the court condemned the casual and negligent attitude of the Revenue officials, highlighting their failure to follow up on the case and their attempts to cover up their negligence by blaming the Advocate. The court stressed that such behavior must have consequences as per the law. The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the Revenue's version of events, especially regarding the filing of Appeals for prior and subsequent assessment years and the need for both to be tagged and heard together for the interest of justice.In conclusion, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, indicating its disapproval of the Revenue's actions and emphasizing the need for accountability and diligence in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 