Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
ITA 232/2016
Page 1 of 2
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 24 +
ITA 232/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing counsel.
versus
ORIENTAL BANKOF COMMERCE
..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R %
05.04.2016
CM APPL No. 12609/2016 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
ITA No. 232/2016 & CM APPL No. 12683/2016 (for condonation of delay of 841 days in re-filing the appeal)
There is an inordinate delay of 841 days in re-filing the appeal.
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 regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.
As regards the first ground, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the
ITA 232/2016
Page 2 of 2
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. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of over 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.
The application CM No. 12683/2016 for the condonation of delay of 841 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 05, 2016 Rm