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 refuses to condone 374-day delay in setting aside order, stresses importance of diligence in legal matters.</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Mumbai Versus M/s. Airlift (India) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Mumbai Versus M/s. Airlift (India) Pvt. Ltd. - [2018] 405 ITR 487 (Bom) Issues:Condonation of delay in setting aside the order dated 9th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotry and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules.Analysis:1. The applicant sought condonation of a 374-day delay in setting aside the order rejecting the appeal due to failure to remove objections within the stipulated time. Despite multiple extensions granted by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the objections were not removed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.2. The affidavit claimed administrative difficulties, including staff shortage, as the reason for the delay. However, the court found this explanation insufficient, emphasizing that mere administrative difficulties cannot justify the failure to remove objections without specific details.3. Referring to a similar case, the court highlighted that administrative difficulties cannot be a valid reason for filing a defective appeal and failing to act promptly. The court stressed the importance of diligence and commitment from government departments in legal matters.4. Citing another case, the court criticized the Revenue for negligence in handling appeals, expecting responsible officials to follow up on legal cases instead of delegating to junior staff. The court condemned the lack of vigilance and interest in pursuing cases involving significant tax amounts.5. Based on the observations and precedents, the court declined to condone the 374-day delay in the application, ultimately dismissing the Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the court's reasoning and the legal principles applied in the decision regarding the condonation of delay in the mentioned case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
