Revenue appeal dismissed due to delays in filing. Lackadaisical attitude cited.

The Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue against an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 due to significant delays in filing and re-filing the appeal. The Court found the Appellant's explanations for the delays unconvincing, noting a lackadaisical attitude in pursuing the appeal. Despite citing legal precedents on government authorities' delays, the Court emphasized the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delays. Consequently, both applications for condonation of delay were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Delay in re-filing the appeal.
3. Lackadaisical attitude of the Appellant.
4. Lack of convincing explanation for the delay.
5. Legal precedents on delays by government authorities in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue was directed against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was accompanied by two applications for condoning the delay of 928 days in filing the appeal and 1656 days in re-filing the appeal. The notice issued in the appeal and applications were returned unserved as the Respondent's premises were vacant.

2. The explanation provided for the delay in re-filing the appeal was deemed unconvincing by the Court. The Appellant's lackadaisical attitude in pursuing the appeal was evident, especially considering the initial delay in filing the appeal.

3. The delay of 928 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the present appeal was filed nearly two years after this order without any explanation for the delay, which was not acceptable.

4. Legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that lethargy by government authorities in prosecuting matters cannot be a legitimate reason for delays in filing appeals. The Court highlighted a recent case where the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition due to a delay of 728 days, imposing costs on the petitioners.

5. Ultimately, the Court found that no convincing explanation was provided by the Appellant for the extraordinary delays in filing and re-filing the appeal. As a result, both the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the appeal itself was also dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment illustrates the issues surrounding the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal, the lackadaisical attitude displayed by the Appellant, and the legal precedents cited by the Court to support its decision to dismiss the appeal.

---