2017 (8) TMI 472 - HC - Wealth-tax

Condonation of delay - re-filing the appeal is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters - Held that - 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 minimized. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. 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. Condonation of the delay of 1280 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Delay of 1280 days in re-filing the appeal

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought condonation of a 1280-day delay in re-filing the appeal, citing various reasons such as the requirement to file typed copies of orders, compliance with High Court rules, and the complexities of e-filing for taxation appeals.
2. The process of e-filing for taxation appeals involves several procedural steps, including pagination, attestation, sewing advance copies, and converting the appeal into a systematic e-scan CD using specialized software, which is not readily available.
3. The High Court Registry checks electronically filed appeals for defects, and any identified issues necessitate a repetition of the entire e-filing process, causing delays.
4. The petitioner highlighted the time-consuming nature of the e-filing process, the involvement of authorized vendors for CD conversion, and the need for correspondence with the Income Tax Department to allocate funds for expenses.
5. The Court noted that the department's repeated excuse regarding the practice directions for filing soft copies of paperbooks in tax matters was insufficient to justify the lengthy delay in re-filing the appeal.
6. Despite the department's claims of inconvenience and lack of follow-up, the Court emphasized that sufficient notice had been provided, and arrangements had been made for scanning services to streamline the process.
7. The Court expressed disbelief that no one within the department monitored the appeal's status over three years, especially considering the presence of a designated cell overseeing such matters.
8. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay of 1280 days in re-filing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the reasons for the delay, the procedural complexities of e-filing, the Court's expectations regarding follow-up and oversight, and the final decision to dismiss the appeal based on the excessive delay.