Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs Clariant (India) Ltd.

Since Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated that the lapse is on his part in not complying with and removing the office objection has resulted in dismissal of the appeal, that we proceed to condone the delay. The delay is condoned as the cause shown is satisfactory and also because the litigant need not suffer on account of any lapse on the part of its Advocate. The lapse not being intentional in this case and having been owned up by Mr. Suresh Kumar, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There will be no order as to costs.

We would expect that every Department''s/Revenue''s appeal filed in this Court and pending for non-removal of office objection ought to be followed up by not only the Advocate for Revenue but by the Revenue Officials incharge of initiating litigation and in the Higher Court. They ought to be guided by the Superiors as to how the matter needs to be followed up and along with the Advocate. It is not the practice of this Court that in such matters, merely because the Advocate owns up the mistake or lapse, that the delay will be condoned automatically. The Departmental Official must also give explanation for not being in touch with the Advocate and following the matters. The Departmental Head and the Superiors shall pull up such officers and visit them with penalties and any other departmental action for their lapse. Ultimately, all must understand that they are in public service and their acts should be in public good and for upholding public interest. The matters of Revenue and Tax ought to be followed up, therefore, with due diligence. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax-I. Let him now take necessary steps and place a report before this Court as to what action he proposes to take in the pending matters and in future cases.