Case Law Details
The only other explanation, to which the attention of the Court is drawn, is that in paragraphs 3(H)(iv) and (v) to the effect that the Assistant Manager (Taxation) who scrutinized the order “was about six months old in the taxation department and not very familiar with the subject and the appellate procedure”. Moreover, it has been stated that Court the Senior Officer handling income tax matters was transferred in the month of July 2007. This can be no justification for the Petitioner being negligent in not pursuing the remedy provided under Section 254(2) before the Tribunal within the stipulated period of four years. These proceedings have been instituted on 3 October 2012 nearly about five years and five months after the order of the Tribunal. There is no valid explanation for the delay in moving this court either.
In the circumstances, we find no reason or justification to entertain the request for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007, particularly after the lapse of time that is prescribed in the statutory remedy available under Section 254(2). The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2158 OF 2012
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
