$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 23 + ITA 409/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant Through: Mr Ashok Manchanda, Advocate versus HISTORIC INFRACON Respondent Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 19.05.2017 CM No. 18991/2017 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 18992/2017 (for condonation of delay of 30 days delay in re- filing) 2. For reasons stated therein, delay in re-filing is condoned. application is disposed of. CM No. 18990/2017 (delay of 335 days in filing appeal) 3. There is delay of 335 days in filing appeal. explanation offered for delay is given in paras 3, 4 and 5 of explanation, which read as under: "3. That several orders including Assessment order, CIT (Appeals) order and order of I.T.A.T have been filed along with Appeal. That as per requirements of High Court rules and orders, typed copies of all orders is required to ITA 409/2017 Page 1 of 3 be filed along with Appeal. Beside this, several other compliances have to be fulfilled by Assessing Officer. 4. That ld. ITAT had quashed assessment order passed by AO on technical ground that there was no Satisfaction Note recorded by AO of searched party. This ground was taken by assessee by introducing additional evidence in form of letters dated 02-07-2013 by way of Reply under RTI Act for first time before ITAT. It took quite some time to trace and get relevant files which contained RTI Query dated 28-06-2013 and reply dated 02-07-2013 thereto. Meanwhile jurisdiction of case had been transferred from Central Circle to ITO under charge of CIT-4, Delhi. Though case had been transferred, but relevant records took quite some time to be located and transferred. 5. That there are other reasons concerning e-filing system, appeals pertaining to taxation are to be filed electronically. In case, any defects are pointed out by High Court Registry, entire process has to be repeated and appeal is again e- filed. At this juncture, it may be stated that 'defect(s)' marked by registry are, usually procedural in nature, such as (i) age of concerned CIT signing affidavit is not stated in affidavit, (ii) PAN of assessee/respondent is not mentioned, (iii) service to assessee/respondent is more than one week ago etc, Usually, registry takes two-three days' time to make fresh copy and during that time caveat report expires and whole process is to be repeated again." 4. Supreme Court has in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 reiterated its earlier decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 where it was observed as under: ITA 409/2017 Page 2 of 3 "In our view, it is right time to inform all government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept usual explanation that file was kept pending for process. government departments are under special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as anticipated benefit for Government Departments. law shelters everyone under same light and should not be swirled for benefit of few. 5. reasons given in present application are wholly unsatisfactory. mere fact that Assessing Officer was busy in other time-bearing assessments can hardly be excuse, particularly given fact that under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, time period for filing of appeal is 120 days. No other statute prescribes time period of over three months. Moreover, there is no explanation for every day s delay. delay of 335 days cannot be said to be routine. 6. With there being no satisfactory explanation, application for condonation of 335 days in filing appeal is dismissed. ITA 409/2017 7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 19, 2017/rd ITA 409/2017 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Historic Infracon