2017 (5) TMI 791 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - As regards the electronic filing system introduced by this Court, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. The Department has itself been filing appeals after introduction of the e-filing system, without any difficulty. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of nearly one year in filing the appeal. As regards the hierarchies and internal procedure of the Department that has been mentioned in the above paragraph, it requires to be noted that the Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He 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. Resultantly, the explanation offered by the Department is not acceptable.With there being no satisfactory explanation offered, the application for condonation of the delay of 335 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, explanation for delay, electronic filing system compliance.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeal (335 Days): The judgment addresses the inordinate delay of 335 days in filing the appeal. The impugned order by ITAT was dated 29th October 2015, but the appeal was filed on 4th March 2017. The court notes that the application for condonation of delay was drafted casually, focusing on re-filing delay rather than the delay in filing itself. The explanation provided did not account for each day's delay, as required by legal standards.

2. Condonation of Delay: The court refers to legal precedents emphasizing that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be a routine benefit for government departments. The application failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay. The court highlighted the need for diligence and commitment from government bodies in fulfilling their duties promptly.

3. Explanation for Delay: The Department's explanation for the delay was deemed unsatisfactory. The argument that electronic filing was cumbersome and time-consuming was dismissed, as the Department had successfully filed appeals electronically before. The court emphasized that the change to electronic filing could not justify a year-long delay in filing the appeal.

4. Compliance with Electronic Filing System: The court noted that the Department had been informed in advance about the electronic filing system and provided with scanning services for soft copies. The Department's internal hierarchy was also considered, with the Deputy CIT responsible for tracking appeal filings. The court concluded that the Department's internal procedures did not justify the significant delay in filing the appeal.

5. Judgment: Due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the application for condonation of the 335-day delay was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal itself was also dismissed. The court's decision was based on the failure to meet the legal requirements for condonation of delay and the inadequacy of the Department's explanation for the prolonged filing delay.