9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 175 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of the delay of 395 days in re-filing the appeal - 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. As regards the second ground, again 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. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than a year and a month. Third reason as the change of Standing counsel for the Department is again, does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than one year and five months 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. - Decided against assessee.
Issues: Delay in re-filing the appeal, Excuses for delay, Change of Standing counsel
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed with an inordinate delay of over a year and a month in re-filing. The Court notes the department's standard excuses for the delay, citing budgetary constraints and practice directions on filing soft copies of paperbooks. The Court finds the department's reasons unconvincing. The Court highlights that the Court Fees Act amendment and notice on soft copies were well in advance, minimizing inconvenience. The change in standing counsel is also raised as a reason, but the Court dismisses it, emphasizing the department's responsibility to track appeals. The Court, therefore, dismisses the application for condonation of the delay and subsequently dismisses the appeal.
|
