2018 (6) TMI 1325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules for failure to remove the office objections on or before 2nd February, 2017. 2. The affidavit in support filed by Mr. K.V. Sreenivas, ITO, dated 28th March, 2018 states that the objections could not be removed within time and the matter stood dismissed. It further states that the Revenue became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only when the process of filing the notice of motion was commenced. No particulars of the date and the manner in which the Assessing Officer became aware of the dismissal of the rejection of the appeal is mentioned in the affidavit in support of the motion. The affidavit further records that "advocate on record thus, somehow managed to contact the conce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Go....