2021 (9) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicant. Mr. Niraj Seth with Mr. Nitin Dhumal for Respondent.   ORDER : 1. On 10th August, 2021, following order came to be passed "1. When the Court pointed out to Mr. Walve that except from saying due to inadvertence the office objection remained to be removed, there is no explanation whatsoever. On 28th August 2014 applicant was directed to remove office objections withi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 16th March 2016 and still the application has been affirmed only on 4th February 2020 but lodged on 4th March 2020 and how after four years applicant realised that the appeal had been dismissed. This further affidavit shall be filed and copy served within two weeks from today. Respondent may file a reply to this application as well as to the additional affidavit to be filed and serve a copy there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tement that incumbent AO came to know that the Appeal filed by the department on the issue of existence of M.N. Navale Bigger HUF, the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the Appeal for want of removal of office objections. Mr. Walve states that the said order of ITAT was passed on 15th November, 2019. What we find unacceptable is that the incumbent A.O. has not filed any Affidavit. In paragraph 6, A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sal of this case....". 5. In paragraph 7, the Applicant states that "while constructing the factual background of this issue in case of M.N. Navale Bigger HUF (AY 2001 - 2002 to 2007 - 2008), it was noticed that the Appeal recorded the issue of existence of M.N. Navale HUF.....," He does not say on which date and who noticed it. 6. As stated in the Affidavit in Reply, the department was cons....