IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION No.2258 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION No.2258 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION No.2258 of 2008. IN IN IN INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 179 OF 2008. APPEAL (L) NO. 179 OF 2008. APPEAL (L) NO. 179 OF 2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. ..Appellant. ..Appellant. V/s. M/s Swati Diamonds ..Respondent. ..Respondent. ..Respondent. None for the Appellant. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : ---- ---- ---- 1. None appears for the appellant. 2. The above matter was on board on 11.9.2008. Mr Sahadevan had appeared for the Appellant and sought time to serve the Respondent. On 25.9.2008, Mr Sahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant stated that the Respondent could not be served. He, again sought time, which we granted till 10.10.2008 to serve the Respondent. 3. Thereafter, the matter appeared on the board on 15.10.2008. Mr Sahadevan i/b Ms Anuradha Mane again stated that the Respondent has not been served and he sought time till today as a last chance. However, today, neither Mr Sahadevan, nor Mrs Anuradha Mane, nor the concerned I.T. Commissioner are present. No steps are taken. We may observe that Ms Anuradha Mane has been enaged by the Department in number of cases but in none of the matters she has appeared before this Court for the last four months. In all her cases, some other Advocates appear. As a matter of fact, as per Court rule, no Advocate can appear unless accompanied by Advocate on record or files his/her Vakalatnama with "no objection" from Advocate on record. 4. This Court has, time and again, tried to impress upon the Department the necessity of proper representation since Revenue of Crores of rupees is involved in cases filed before this Court. 5. The Income-tax Department is dealing with public money. Stake of every citizen of this country is involved in the litigation. It is a major source of revenue of the country as such it is a personal responsibility of each Commissioner of Income-tax to handle cases falling within his jurisdiction, with due care and without any negligence. 6. The case in hand is a burning example showing gross negligence on the part of the Appellant - I. T. Department, in dealing with the matters. This Court ( 3 ) being a constitutional Court thinks that the time has come to fix personal responsibility on the Officers of the Department; considering absence of any improvement in their working; which in our opinion must reflect in the service record of respective officers. 7. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the notice of motion subject to payment of cost, personally, by the Commissioner of Income-tax-XVI, Mumbai, the Appellant herein, quantified in the sum of Rs 5,000/- within two weeks from today. The payment of cost shall be condition precedent. 8. Mr Vimal Gupta, Advocate, who normally appears for the Department, has assured us that he will personally communicate this order to the concerned Commissioner as well as the Chief I.T. Commissioner. Needless to mention that, if the things do not improve, this Court will not hesitate to take serious view of the matter. 9. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. ( 4 ) 10. In view of dismissal of notice of motion, appeal does not survive and stands disposed of. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)