Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
ITA No. 324 of 2017
Page 1 of 2
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 33. +
ITA 324/2017
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing
Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate.
versus
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATION
INDIAPRIVATE LIMITED)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Ms. Vrinda
Tulshan and Mr. Manan Jain, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R %
28.04.2017
CM No. 16137/2017 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 16135/2017 (for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal)
For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM No. 16136/2017 (for condonation of delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal)
There is an inordinate delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal.
ITA No. 324 of 2017
Page 2 of 2
The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. 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 almost 1144 days 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.
The application for condonation of the delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal ITA 324 of 2017 is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 28, 2017 dn