bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2278 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.2278 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.2278 OF 2008 IN IN IN INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L)NO.14 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.14 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.14 OF 2007 The Director of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Standard Chartered Bank ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Dinesh Vyas with Mr.P.C.Tripathi for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking the condonation of 1045 days’ delay in filing the above Appeal. 2. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue very candidly states that though he has filed Vakalatnama and has drafted the present Notice of Motion, the Revenue has taken away all the papers from him and he has no papers with regard to above matter. Mr.Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee states that he has not been served neither with the memo of Appeal nor the present Notice of Motion till date, though the present Appeal has been lodged on 25th June, 2008. :2: 3. In the above, the Appellant is challenging the order dated 26th August, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The DGIT (International Taxation) had granted the approval for filing an Appeal on 27th December, 2004. However, the present Appeal has been lodged only on 28th November, 2007 i.e. after a lapse of almost 2 years and 9 months. The reasons given for causing such a gross delay are, that the Appellant has been diligently following the matter for filing the Appeal on due date itself, however for the reasons beyond the control of the Appellant which includes the administrative difficulties, the Appeal could not be filed in time. It appears from the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion that the draft memo of Appeal was ready but could not be filed in time due to shortage of stamp papers also the Appeal could not be filed in time. It is pertinent to note that during the aforesaid, number of Appeals have been filed by the Revenue with requisite court fees. 4. We are astounded with the reasons given by the Revenue for causing such a gross delay in filing the above Appeal. We are not inclined to entertain the present Notice of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed. :3: 6. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes for information and appropriate action against the concerned Officer of the Revenue, who is responsible to file an Appeal within time. It has been noticed by this Court that number of Appeals are filed involving delay ranging from 500 days to 2000 days, and the same are being dismissed by this Court for want of sufficient explanation. However, no responsibility is fixed on the Officer committing such lapse for delayed filing of Appeal. We are of the considered opinion that unless responsibility is fixed on the erring Officer, administration may not see any improvement. We hope that the Chairman, CBDT will personally look into the matter and take corrective steps and shall fix responsibility of the instant matter and take action in accordance with law. Compliance report, if submitted, would be highly appreciated. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)