Full Text
ITA 58/2016
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX VIII Appellant
Through:Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra,Advocate.
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-VIII Appellant
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-VIII Appellant
2016:DHC:8465-DB 1^'
01.02.2016 CM No.972 of2016(exemption)in ITA No.58 of2016
CM No.3012 of2016(exemption)in ITA No.93 of2016
ORDER
1. Allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
2. The applications are allowed. CM No.973 of2016(for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal)& ITA No.58of2016 CM No.3008 of 2016(for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) &ITA No.91 of2016 CM No.3013 of 2016(for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) &ITA No.93 of2016
3. There is an inordinate delay of805 days in re-filing the appeals.
4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation ofdelay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding the budgetary constraints of the Department which delayed payment ofthe differential court fees as a result ofthe Court Fees Delhi Amendment Act,2012 which came into force on August 2012. The second is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing ofsoft copies ofthe paper books in tax matters.
5. The first ground is entirely unconvincing. Much prior to the initial filing of the appeal, the Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi stood amended. As regards the second ground,again sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates aboutthe filing ofsoft copies ofthe paper books. ITA Nos.58,9I& 93/2016 Page2of[3] > Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services atthe filing counters to facilitate the making ofsoft copies so thatthe inconvenience,ifany,caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised.In any event,the change could not have entailed a delay ofmore than two years.
6. It is not possible to acceptthat no one followed up on the filing ofappeals and allowed a period of more than two years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision ofa Deputy CIT.He ought to be keeping track ofthe filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.
7. The applications are dismissed.
8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed on grounds ofextraordinary delay of805 days in re-filing the appeal.
S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J FEBRUARY 01,2016 mg