Revenue filed an appeal against order of Tribunal. In view of certain defects in appeal, revenue authorities were granted 30 days time to remove those office objections. Prothonotary and Senior Master finding that revenue failed to remove those objections within prescribed period, passed an order in terms of rule 986 of 1980 Rules dismissing revenue’s appeal. Revenue thereupon filed an application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal and reason offered for delay was that time was consumed in restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate. Prothonotary and Senior Master allowed assessee’s application. Assessee has filed an objection. The Court held that High Court held that;Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer and he has no power to condone the delay. Court also held that since revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined . (AY. 2006-07)
CIT v. Bharati Vidyapeeth ( 2017) 87 taxmann.com 181 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v. Bharati Vidyapeeth (2018) 257 Taxman 557 (SC)
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Failure to remove objections – Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer – He has no power to condone the delay – Application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal – Restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate – Dismissed the appeal by observing that revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined .[Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule 986 of 1980 ]