$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 39. + ITA 884/2015 & CM No.27019/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V ..... Appellant Through: Mr N. P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Nitin Gulati, Junior Standing Counsel. versus M/s. RITES LTD. ..... Respondent Through CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 18.11.2015 1. There is inordinate delay of 725 days in re-filing appeal. explanation offered for delay is standard one regarding practice directions issued by Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of paper books in tax matters. As noted by court in its orders dismissing similar applications in certain other appeals of Revenue, sufficient time was provided by Court for Advocates to familiarise themselves with requirements for e-filing of appeals. Court had provided scanning facilities at filing counters and had arranged for training of Advocates. In any event, question of delay of nearly two years in ITA 884/2015 & CM No.27019/2015 Page 1 of 3 complying with requirements e-filing is simply not acceptable. Court, therefore, declines to condone inordinate delay of 725 days in re- filing appeal. 2. Nevertheless, appeal has also been considered on merits. short question urged by Revenue in appeal is whether ITAT was right in deleting addition of prior period expenses claimed by Assessee in its profit and loss account for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. ITAT has in impugned order dated 1st March 2103 in ITA No. 4233/Del/2001 followed its own order in Assessee's case ITA No. 3074/Del/2006 for AY 1988-89 allowing claim of prior period expenses. Court notes that ITAT observed in its order for AY 1988-89, inter alia, as under: "The assessee is government undertaking. assessee has been following system of accounting as per which all items of income and expenditure are treated as accrued only after approval is granted by competent authority. This system has been followed consistently in respect of both income and expenditure items. system followed has been accepted by department in immediate preceding year. Therefore, in our view, it will not be appropriate to disturb regular system being followed by assessee." 3. Although in memo of appeal it is stated said order of ITAT has ITA 884/2015 & CM No.27019/2015 Page 2 of 3 been challenged by Revenue, Mr. Sahni, learned Senior Standing counsel frankly stated that he was unable to find out any information regarding such appeal. 4. In circumstances, no substantial question of law arises even on merits. 5. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed both on ground of inordinate delay of 725 days in re-filing appeal as well as on merits. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 MK ITA 884/2015 & CM No.27019/2015 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax-V v. M/s. Rites Ltd