JUDGMENT

Sandeep K. Shinde, J. - The motion No. 534 of 2014 seeks condonation of 374 days delay in taking out this motion to set aside the order dated 9th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotry and Senior Master rejecting the applicant''s appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules for failure to remove the objections.

2. On 9th February, 2017, the Prothonotary and Senior Master had granted time to remove the office objections on or before 9th March, 2017 failing which the appeal was liable to be rejected. Thereafter, the applicant Revenue by communication dated 30th March, 2017 sought further two weeks time to remove the office objections. On 20th April, 2017, the applicant Revenue had again filed another application seeking extension of 3 weeks time to remove the office objection and the same was granted by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and the time to remove office objections expired on 28th April, 2017.

3. The affidavit in support of the notice of motion states that the objections could not removed within the stipulated time in view of the administrative difficulty including shortage of Staff. It is further submitted that they learnt about the dismissal of this appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules when this was brought to its notice by the standing counsel on 1st May, 2018.

4. The application for condonation of delay as made does not apear bona fiade, as it is clear that applicant failed to remove the office objections though the the applicant secured extension of time to remove the office objection on three occasions from the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Therefore, they were very much aware of the fact that the office objections had to be removed with the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master and yet the affidavit offers no explanation as to what steps were taken by the Revenue after the last extension to remove office objections by three weeks granted on 6th April, 2017 by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The only reasons made out in the affidavit in support is administrative difficulty including shortage of staff. This cannot be the reason for condonation of delay in the absence of same being particularized.

5. Infact in identical circumstances, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2017) 398 ITR 29 has observed as under (page 31 ):

"This is for the reason that the genesis of the present notice of motion is the order dated November 19, 2005 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master which has granted tie to remove office objections on or before December 17, 2015 failing which the petitioner''s appeal was to stand rejected for non-removal of office objections. The applicant/Revenue failed to remove office objections resulting in the appeal itself being rejected by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The present affidavit like the earlier affidavits in support of the earlier notices of motion offers the same reasons, i.e. administrative difficulties namely shortage of staff which has resulted in non-removal of office objections. This can hardly be a reason for filing an appeal which is defective and then claiming that the same could not be removed because of administrative difficulties without setting out any particulars.

In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 7 (SC), (2012) 3 SCC 563 has, inter alia, observed as follows (page 19 of 348 ITR):

It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question w