2017 (8) TMI 853 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal - reasons for delay - change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect - Held that - This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department 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. Practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals - Held that - As already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over three years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1145 days in re-filing the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 1145 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Excuses put forth by the department for the delay.
3. Practice directions for e-filing of appeals and their relevance to the case.

Issue 1: Delay of 1145 days in re-filing the appeal
The judgment addresses the significant delay of 1145 days in re-filing the appeal. The Court notes the standard excuses presented by the department for this delay, primarily revolving around the change of Standing Counsel and the failure to track the appeal's status. The Court expresses dissatisfaction with these explanations, emphasizing the department's responsibility to monitor appeal filings diligently. Despite the explanations provided, the Court deems the delay unacceptable, leading to the dismissal of the application and subsequently the appeal.

Issue 2: Excuses put forth by the department for the delay
The judgment scrutinizes the excuses provided by the department for the prolonged delay in re-filing the appeal. The Court highlights two main justifications offered by the department. Firstly, the change in Standing Counsel and the alleged lack of communication regarding the appeal's status. The Court dismisses this explanation, expecting better oversight from the department, especially considering the presence of a cell supervised by a Deputy CIT responsible for monitoring appeal filings. Secondly, the department cites practice directions for e-filing appeals as a contributing factor to the delay. However, the Court reiterates that these directions were issued after due consultation and provision of necessary resources, making the delay inexcusable.

Issue 3: Practice directions for e-filing of appeals and their relevance to the case
The judgment delves into the practice directions concerning e-filing of appeals and their relevance to the case at hand. The Court emphasizes that these directions were formulated in consultation with the bar and with ample time for adjustment. Additionally, the Court mentions the provision of scanning machines at filing counters to facilitate the transition to e-filing. Despite these considerations, the Court deems the delay of over three years unjustifiable, indicating a lack of compliance with the established procedures. Consequently, the Court declines to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal.