IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32 ITA No. 578/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Junior Standing Counsel versus IQOR INDIA SERVICES (P) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 31.07.2017 C.M. No. 26888 /2017 (delay of 595 days in filing) in ITA No. 578/2017 1. There is extraordinary delay of 595 days in re-filing present appeal. In present application for condonation of delay, reasons furnished are as under: 2. That initially appeal in present case was filed on 09.10.2014within prescribed period of limitation. However, due to drastic increase in court fees, matters were placed under objections by registry. It would be appreciated that each CIT charge was therefore left with thousands of appeals for which requisite funds had to be received from ITA No. 578/2017 Page 1 of 3. Central Government and thereafter allocated by CBDT. amounts were extremely substantial and were not part of allocated budget for year. This has resulted in present delay in re-filing appeal due to unavoidable circumstances. 3. That besides above grounds, after removal of objections, matter could not be cleared on account of digitization (e- filing) of case, which has also resulted delay in re-filing, which was beyond control of appellant. 4. That present case has recently been entrusted from earlier Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department to present counsel as earlier counsel is no more in panel of Income Tax Department, and as such present counsel has taken steps to remove objections but there has been delay in re-filing same. Since appeal has been filed in discharge of official duties and on basis of records maintained in office, there has been delay in re-filing appeal. delay of 595 days in re-filing appeal may kindly be condoned as appeals are being field in discharge of official duties and some delay has taken place on account of fact that concerned officer has to perform other functions as Assessing Officer. counsel has diligently taken sincere steps to remove objections, but it resulted in delay for few days. 2. first ground is entirely unconvincing. Much prior to initial filing of appeal, Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi stood amended. As regards second ground, again sufficient advance notice had been given to litigants and Advocates about filing of soft copies of paperbooks. Further, Registry of Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at filing counters to facilitate making of soft copies so that inconvenience if any caused to Advocates and litigants is ITA No. 578/2017 Page 2 of 3. minimised. In any event change could not have entailed delay of 595 days. 3. As regards third ground, it is not possible to accept that no one followed up on filing of appeals and allowed period of more than 500 days to elapse before appeal could be re-filed. Department has cell in High Court which is under supervision of Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before Court for long time. 4. above explanation offered by Appellant is insufficient for Court to be persuaded to condone delay of 595 days in re-filing appeal.. 5. application is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JULY 31, 2017 rd ITA No. 578/2017 Page 3 of 3. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Iqor India Services (P) Ltd