TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi High Court dismisses appeal due to delays, stresses timely compliance</h1> <h3>PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus BHASKAR POWER PROJECTS P. LTD.</h3> The Delhi High Court, in a judgment by S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakru, JJ., addressed delays of 1494 days in filing the appeal and 1021 days in re-filing ... Condonation of delay - reasons for delay - Held that:- There is no explanation for the delay between 21st July 2012 when the order was passed by the Gujarat High Court and 9th May 2013 when this appeal was first filed. The entire approach appears to be casual. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. As far as the application for condoning the delay of 1021 days in re-filing is concerned the Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. As regards this ground, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than three years. Appellant pointed out a second reason. The change of Standing counsel for the Department. This again, does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. The applications for condonation of the delay of 1494 days in filing the appeal and for condonation of the delay of 1021 days in re-filing the appeal are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Issues:Delay of 1494 days in filing the appeal, delay of 1021 days in re-filing the appeal, condonation of delay applications, reasons for delay, practice directions for filing soft copies of paperbooks in tax matters.Analysis:The judgment by the Delhi High Court, delivered by S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakru, JJ., addresses the issues of delay in filing and re-filing an appeal, along with the applications for condonation of such delays. The Court notes a delay of 1494 days in filing the appeal and 1021 days in re-filing it. The reasons provided for the initial delay include the transfer of the case to a different jurisdiction and seeking the opinion of the Senior Standing Counsel for filing the appeal before the Delhi High Court. However, the Court finds the approach to be casual and lacking a satisfactory explanation for the delay between the orders passed by different High Courts, leading to the refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal.Regarding the delay in re-filing the appeal, the Court observes that the standard excuse presented by the department is related to the practice directions issued by the Court regarding filing soft copies of paperbooks in tax matters. The Court emphasizes that adequate notice was provided to the litigants and Advocates about the new filing requirements, and scanning services were made available at the filing counters to facilitate compliance. The Court dismisses the department's reasons for the delay, particularly highlighting the change in Standing counsel and the lack of follow-up on the appeal's re-filing process. The Court expects the department, especially the Deputy CIT supervising the filing of appeals, to ensure timely compliance and tracking of appeal listings.Ultimately, the Court dismisses the applications for condonation of the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. The judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance with court procedures and the responsibility of the concerned departments to ensure efficient handling of legal matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
