$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 51. + ITA 52/2015 CIT-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr N. P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Nitin Gulati, Junior Standing Counsel. versus ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 19.10.2015 CM No. 23522 of 2015 (for condonation of delay) 1. On 14th October, 2015, this Court passed following order: 1. Pursuant to previous order dated 1st September 2015, Revenue has on 26th September 2015 filed this application seeking condonation of 85 days delay in filing appeal by construing date of receipt of certified copy of impugned order dated 16th May 2014 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) as 23rd July 2014, i.e. date on which it was delivered to Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Judicial). It is nevertheless stated that this application has been filed out of abundant caution since according to Revenue, limitation for purposes of Section 260 (2) (a) of Income Tax Act 1961 ( Act ) should be reckoned only from date certified copy of order of ITAT is received by concerned CIT. It is clarified by Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned Senior standing counsel for Revenue, that ITA 52/2015 Page 1 of 3 said date was 19th September 2014 and not 29th September 2014 as erroneously stated in para 6 of memo of appeal. 2. Notice. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel accepts notice for Respondent in application. 3. Court s attention has been drawn to judgment of this Court in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (2005)278 ITR 490. said judgment mandated that ITAT shall pronounce its orders in open court by listing cases for pronouncement. Mr. Sahni states that said judgment is being scrupulously followed and ever since ITAT has been pronouncing its orders after listing matters for pronouncement in cause list. 4. Court is informed that as follow up of above judgement, there were certain changes made in administrative side and one of which was that for purposes of Section 254(3) of Act requirement of ITAT having to send copy of order passed by it to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied by ensuring that said order is sent to CIT (Judicial). This was to facilitate communication of orders of ITAT to Income Tax Department without unnecessary delay. 5. Court requests Assistant Registrar of ITAT to send to it forthwith both by special messenger as well as by email copies of circulars/notifications/communications relevant to issue of communication of orders of ITAT to Department. 6. Assistant Registrar of Tax Branch of this Court is requested to follow up with Assistant Registrar of ITAT to ensure compliance of above direction. 7. List on 19th October 2015. ITA 52/2015 Page 2 of 3 8. copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master. certified copy will be delivered forthwith by Registry through Special Messenger to Assistant Registrar, ITAT for compliance. 2. Court has been shown copy of Office Manual of ITAT containing detailed procedure in relation to matters before ITAT, including communication of its orders. 3. Today in two other appeals i.e. ITA Nos.755 and 756 of 2015 (Pr CIT v. Gulbarga Associates Pvt. Ltd.), questions concerning interpretation of Section 260A (2) (a) have been referred to larger Bench. Court is of view that many of those questions would arise in present appeal as well. 4. Consequently, this appeal is also directed to be placed before Hon ble Chief Justice for being placed before larger Bench to be heard along with ITA Nos.755 and 756 of 2015. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 19, 2015 MK ITA 52/2015 Page 3 of 3 CIT-7 v. ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD