$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3 + WTA No. 7/2017 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (C)-1 Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel versus SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 04.08.2017 C. M. No. 22539 /2017 (delay of 1280 days in re-filing) 1. There is delay of 1280 days in re-filing present appeal. In present application for condonation of delay, reasons furnished are 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 be filed along with Appeal. Beside this, several other compliances have to be fulfilled by Assessing Officer. 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, sewing advance copy to opposite parties, taking caveat report, entire set of appeal is given in CD for burning/ WTA No. 7/2017 Page 1 of 3 converting same into systematic CD. appeal is then 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 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. 2. Court finds that standard excuse that department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing appeal WTA No. 7/2017 Page 2 of 3 is regarding practice directions issued by Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of paperbooks in tax matters. 3. As regards this ground, 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 minimised. In any event change could not have entailed delay of more than two years. 4. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on filing of appeals and allowed period of more than three years 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. 5. application bearing C.M. No. 22539/2017 for condonation of delay of 1280 days in re-filing appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 04, 2017/rd WTA No. 7/2017 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner of Wealth-tax (C)-1 v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd