What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, stating that sufficient notice was given for the changes in court fees and soft copy filing. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to follow up on filings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 802 days in re-filing. The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, cited budgetary constraints and new court fee regulations as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in re-filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and justifiable. The court also considered the adequacy of the department's internal mechanisms for tracking appeal filings.

CIT vs Harsha Interiors Decorators Pvt… | Delhi High Court 2016

ITA No. 98/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. +

ITA 98/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Advocate.

versus

HARSHA INTERIORS DECORATORS PVT. LTD. .... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

02.02.2016

CM No. 3021/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 98 of 2016

There is an inordinate delay of 802 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 two-fold. The first is regarding the 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. The second is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paper books in tax matters.

The first ground is entirely unconvincing. Much prior to the initial filing

ITA No. 98/2016 Page 2 of 2

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 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.

It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeal 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.

The application is dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed on ground of extraordinary delay of 802 days in re-filing the appeal.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 02, 2016/dn

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. HARSHA INTERIORS DECORATORS PVT. LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments