2017 (8) TMI 854 - HC - Income Tax

Inordinate delay of 887 days in re-filing the appeal - budgetary constraints of the Department which delayed payment of the differential court fees as a result of the Court Fees Delhi Amendment Act, 2012 which came into force on 1st August 2012 - Held that - The first ground is entirely unconvincing. Much prior to the initial filing of the appeal, the Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi stood amended. Practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paper books in tax matters - Held that - Second ground, again sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paper books. 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. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years. Change in the panel of standing counsel - Held that - 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 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. aAplication for condonation of the delay of 887 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal due to 887 days delay.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of condonation of an 887-day delay in re-filing an appeal. The Court noted the standard excuses put forth by the department for the delay, which included budgetary constraints, changes in court fees, practice directions for filing soft copies of paper books, and alterations in the panel of standing counsel. The Court found the first ground of budgetary constraints unconvincing as the Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi had been amended well before the initial filing of the appeal. Regarding the second ground, the Court highlighted that sufficient notice had been provided to litigants and advocates about the requirement to file soft copies, with scanning services available at filing counters to facilitate the process. The Court emphasized that these reasons could not justify a delay of over two years.

The judgment further criticized the lack of follow-up by the department in tracking the filing of appeals, especially given the presence of a cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT. The Court held that it was unreasonable for no one to monitor the status of appeals for such an extended period. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of the 887-day delay in re-filing the appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal itself. The decision underscored the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements and the need for diligent oversight to prevent undue delays in legal proceedings.