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>Court dismisses motion to condone 171-day delay in setting aside order</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3 Versus M/s. Maruti Impex</h3> The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 171-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated 5th January, ... Condonation of delay of 171 days - removal of office objections - Held that:- This application had came up earlier on 9th February, 2017. On that date, after the application was heard for some time, Ms. Divakar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue took time to file further affidavit in support of the delay in taking out this Notice of Motion. Revenue has filed a further affidavit of Shri Puneetinder Singh Walia, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax dated 14th February, 2018. In the affidavit, they attempt to explain the delay from 13th July, 2017 till the date of filing the Motion on 22nd August, 2017. There is no attempt to explain the delay in taking out this application from 22nd February, 2017 to 13th July, 2017. We find that the earlier affidavit in support also does not give any explanation for not having moved this application earlier when undisputedly the Appeal stood dismissed on 2nd February, 2017. The attempt on the part of the Revenue to explain the delay is most casual. No explanation has been offered for the same. No reason has been made out to condone the delay Issues: Condonation of delay in setting aside a self-operating orderAnalysis:The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of a 171-day delay in setting aside a self-operating order dated 5th January, 2017. The order directed the Applicant to address office objections by 2nd February, 2017, failing which the appeal would stand rejected under Rule 986 of the High Court (O.S.) Rules. The Applicant failed to comply with this directive, leading to the present application.The application was initially heard on 9th February, 2017, during which Ms. Divakar, representing the Revenue, requested time to file a further affidavit explaining the delay. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed by Shri Puneetinder Singh Walia, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 14th February, 2018, attempting to clarify the delay from 13th July, 2017, until the filing of the Motion on 22nd August, 2017. However, no explanation was provided for the delay between 22nd February, 2017, and 13th July, 2017, which remained unaddressed.The court noted that the explanations provided by the Revenue for the delay were insufficient and lacked detail. The attempt to justify the delay was considered casual, with no substantial reasons presented. Consequently, the court found no valid grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking the setting aside of the self-operating order dated 5th January, 2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
