2016 (2) TMI 516 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of an inordinate delay of 940 days in re-filing the present appeals - Held that - The explanation offered in the applications is that as per the usual practice if an appeal is assigned to a standing counsel on the panel, unless the Department is contacted by the said counsel, the status of the appeal is actually not followed up with the counsel. It is stated that the present cases were assigned to a standing counsel and initially filed on 27th April, 2013. No follow up action was taken thereafter by the Department. The said standing counsel resigned in August 2014 and returned the cases allocated to him including those lying in defect. They were then re-allocated to another counsel in April 2015. It is simply stated that time was consumed in allocating matters. No effort has been made to explain the delay of over eight months in re-allocating the cases. The explanation offered is unconvincing and is wholly unsatisfactory. Considering that the delay involved in re-filing the appeals is nearly three years, this can hardly qualify as a valid justification.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in re-filing appeals by Revenue against ITAT order for AY 1997-98 and 1998-99.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with applications seeking condonation of a 940-day delay in re-filing appeals by the Revenue against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Respondent Assessee underwent name changes from Fortis Financial Services Ltd. to Religare Technova Ltd. and then to Dion Global Solutions Ltd. The Revenue attributed the delay to the standing counsel's resignation and subsequent re-allocation of cases. However, the court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting the lack of effort in re-allocating the cases promptly, resulting in an unjustifiable delay of over eight months.

The court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the unconvincing and unsatisfactory nature of the explanation provided by the Revenue. The delay of nearly three years was deemed unacceptable, leading to the rejection of the applications. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue against the ITAT order for the respective assessment years were also dismissed by the court.