Commissioner of Income-tax (C)-I v. Diamond Hut India (P) Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0707-3]

Citation 2017-LL-0707-3
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax (C)-I
Respondent Name Diamond Hut India (P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 07/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • good and sufficient cause • delay in filing appeal
Bot Summary: For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The process of e-filing requires several procedural compliances in the terms that after completing the process of pagination, attestation, serving advance copy to the opposite parties, taking caveat report, the entire set of appeal is given in CD for being converting the same into a systematic CD. The appeal is then ITA 372/2017 Page 1 of 3 converted into systematic e-scan CD using specialized software. The process of conversion of the appeals in systematic e-scan CD itself involves substantial time. After the appeal is converted into a systematic e- CD, the same has to be filed electronically and accordingly an e-filing number is generated. As far as the change in counsel is concerned, there is a Dy CIT attached to the Department's cell in the High Court who is expected to oversee the work of the Department as regards filing of appeals. A delay of 957 days in re- filing the appeal cannot be said to be routine. With there being no satisfactory explanation, the application for condonation of 957 days in re- filing the appeal is dismissed.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1 ITA 372/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel versus DIAMOND HUT INDIA (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sahil Kapoor, Mr Sumit Lal Chandani, Mr Ananya Kapoor and Ms Soumya Singh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 07.07.2017 CM 17101/2017 (delay of 21 days in filing) 1. For reasons stated in application, delay of 21 days in filing appeal is condoned. application is allowed. CM 17102/2017 (delay of 957 days in re-filing) 2. There is extraordinary delay of 957 days in re-filing appeal. explanation offered for delay is given in paras 4, 5 and 6 of application, which read as under: "4. That after introduction of e-filing system, appeals pertaining to taxation are to be filed electronically. process of e-filing requires several procedural compliances in terms that after completing process of pagination, attestation, serving advance copy to opposite parties, taking caveat report, entire set of appeal is given in CD for being converting same into systematic CD. appeal is then ITA 372/2017 Page 1 of 3 converted into systematic e-scan CD using specialized software. This software is not available with Sr. Standing Counsel of Income Tax Department and for converting appeal into systematic e-scan CD, services of authorized vendors (which are very few) have to taken. process of conversion of appeals in systematic e-scan CD itself involves substantial time. After appeal is converted into systematic e- CD, same has to be filed electronically and accordingly e-filing number is generated. 5. That procedure of checking these appeals which are e- filed electronically is also different. As appeals are e-filed, same are checked electronically. In case any defects are pointed out by High Court Registry, entire process stated above 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 thc affidavit, (ii) PAN of assessee/respondent is not mentioned, (iii) service to assessee/respondent is more than one week ago etc, 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. 6. That Appellant then initiates process of re-filing appeal. This takes some time as whole process as stated above has to be followed again. Further at times, correspondence/liaisoning has to be made with Income Tax Department with request to make money available for incurring expense and substantial time is involved in this exercise.." 3. other reason given is change in panel counsel and failure of previous counsel to cure defects and re- file cases in time. 4. above explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. introduction of e- ITA 372/2017 Page 2 of 3 filing system was preceded by orientation held by Registry of High Court for lawyers and provision of facilities for smooth transition for changed system of filing. In any event this could hardly justify delay of 957 days in filing. administrative difficulties are of Appellant's own making and also does not justify extraordinary delay. 5. As far as change in counsel is concerned, there is Dy CIT attached to Department's cell in High Court who is expected to oversee work of Department as regards filing of appeals. It is strange that no one followed up with counsel who filed appeal earlier about status of numbering of appeal for nearly three years after it was filed. 6. There is no explanation for every day s delay. delay of 957 days in re- filing appeal cannot be said to be routine. With there being no satisfactory explanation, application for condonation of 957 days in re- filing appeal is dismissed. ITA 372/2017 7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 07, 2017 rd ITA 372/2017 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax (C)-I v. Diamond Hut India (P) Ltd
Report Error