$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21. + ITA 841/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C)-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr N. P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Nitin Gulati, Junior Standing Counsel. versus M/S J.H BUSINESS & PRODUCTS (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 04.11.2015 ITA No. 841/2015 & CM No.25598/2015 (for condonation of delay in re- filing appeal) 1. There is extraordinary delay of 756 days in re-filing appeal. affidavit sworn by Commissioner of Income Tax in support of CM No.25598/2015 is taken on record. Registry is cautioned once again not to accept affidavits of lawyers in support of such applications. Affidavits in support of applications must be only of parties concerned. 2. explanation offered by Revenue for extraordinary delay is ITA 841/2015 Page 1 of 3 standard one regarding practice directions issued by this Court for e- filing of appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, practice directions were issued after consultation with bar and after giving sufficient time for bar to get acquainted with requirement of e-filing. Additionally, Court has also provided scanning machines at filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to bar for switching over to system of e-filing. In any event, delay of over two years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, Court is not persuaded to condone extraordinary delay of 756 days in re-filing appeal. 3. Nevertheless, case has also been examined on merits. It is noticed that in case of associated concerns of Assessee, viz. Surya Vinayak Industries( P) Ltd. as well as Global Business India Pvt. Ltd., information regarding whom was supposed to have been unearthed by Revenue in course of same survey conducted under Section 133A, additions sought to be made were deleted by ITAT. orders of ITAT in their cases has been affirmed by this Court. Court has been shown copy of order dated 4th September, 2013 passed by this Court in ITA No.388/2013 (CIT v. Global Business India Pvt. Ltd.) where Court ITA 841/2015 Page 2 of 3 has come to conclusion that on facts no substantial question of law arose. Further, ITAT has itself in impugned order in para 8 noted that in case of Surya Vinayak Industries ( P) Ltd. High Court had dismissed Revenue s appeal. 4. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. 5. appeal is dismissed both on grounds of extraordinary delay of 756 days in re-filing appeal as well as on merits. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 04, 2015 MK ITA 841/2015 Page 3 of 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C)-III v. M/S J.H BUSINESS & PRODUCTS (P) LTD