The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -25 v. Gac Constructions

35-18-NMA-21=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 35 OF 2018 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 693 OF 2013 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Mumbai .. Applicant In the matter between The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Mumbai .. Applicant v/s.

M/s. GAC Constructions, Mumbai .. Respondent Mr. Arvind Pinto for the applicant / orig. appellant Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida i/b PKP Legal Solutions for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.J.

DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2018.

P.C.

1.

This Notice of Motion has been taken out to condone the delay of 1444 days in seeking to restore its appeal, which was dismissed on 26th September, 2013 by self-operating order of the Prothonotoary and Senior Master. The impugned order of the Prothonotoary and Senior Master dated 26th September, 2013 had granted time to the applicant to remove objections on or before 17th October, 2013, failing which the appeal stands rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court Uday S. Jagtap

35-18-NMA-21=.doc Original Side Rules.

2.

The affidavit in support dated 30th October, 2017 of Mr. Venkatesh Lakka, Income Tax Officer, 25(2)(3) seeking to explain the delay, is bereft of any particulars. All it states is that he has taken charge of the present office in June, 2017. The only explanation offered in the affidavit dated 30th October, 2017 is that prior to his taking charge, there was a restructuring of Income Tax Department but no particulars as to how it prevented the Revenue from removing the office objections in time or the delay in taking out this motion. Nor does the affidavit state when the Revenue came to know of the rejection and what steps were taken thereafter etc. The affidavit in support is most casual.

3.

In the above view, Notice of Motion is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Uday S. Jagtap