Full Text
6.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel.
Through; Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
AND
2016:DHC:8464-DB n
Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
29.01.2016 CM No. 968/2016 (for exemption) in ITA No. 55/2016
ORDER
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of. CM No. 966/2016 (for condonation of delay of 860 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 53/2016 CM No. 969/2016 (for condonation of delay of 1185 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 55/2016 CM No. 970/2016 (for condonation of delay of 1185 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 56/2016
3. There is an inordinate delay of 860 days in re-filing ITA No. 53/2016 and 1185 days each in re-filing ITA Nos. 55/2016 and 56/2016.
4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is that there was a change of counsel.
5. The ground is entirely unconvincing. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals 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 Courtwhich is underthe supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ITA Nos. 53/2016, 55/2016 &56/2016 Page[2] of[3] ought to be keeping track of the 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.
6. Nevertheless each of the cases has been examined on merits as well.
7. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the Assessee in light of the decision of this Court in the Assessee's own case reported as Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc. (2009) 313 ITR
267.
8. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed both on ground of the extraordinary delay in re-filing the appeals as well as on merits.
JANUARY 29, 2016 dn
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J