TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2025: I.A. No. 8762 of 2024 & 213 of 2025: These are the applications praying for condonation of delay for 240 days and 190 days' respectively in refiling the appeal. 2. Issue notice on the applications of refiling delay. 3. Let Reply be filed within two weeks. 4. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter. 5. Appellant submits that he has filed an additional-affidavit dated 07.02.2025. 6. List the application on 28.03.2025." 3. The Applicant has offered the following explanation in IA No. 8762 of 2024 justifying the refiling delay which is as extracted below : - "2. That the appeal was filed through e-portal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. That for the first-time defects were raised by the registry on 29.02.2024, the same were cured by his clerk. However, the registry again raised defects on 28.03.2024. And the same were also cured at the earliest. Moreover, in the month of July 2024, the office of the counsel for the appellant had shifted to another location and therefore due to geographical transition, several files went misplaced including the file pertaining to the present appeal. The re-constructi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproached the registry to satisfy them that all the defects are repetitive in nature which are already cured. However he was assured that on refiling the same, the appeal will be made defect free. The appeal was refiled on 10.04.2024. On the same day, the clerk of the counsel for appellant had approached the registry to get the appeal defect free. The registry had assured that the appeal will be made defect free. However, the registry again raised defects on 06.05.2024, the perusal of the defect sheet reflects that the defects are repetitive. Having said that, the clerk of the counsel for appellant had cured those defects which were belatedly raised. And the appeal was refiled on the same day itself i.e. 08.08.2024. Another round of defects raising and its removal had taken place on 25.08.2024 and 30.08.2024. Thereafter on 09.09.2024, again repetitive defects were raised by the registry wherein despite the appeal being properly paginated, the defect of pagination was raised. The clerk of the counsel for appellant had yet again approached registry to make satisfy them as to the removal of said defect. After which the clerk was asked to refile the appeal as it is. Pursuant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.12.2024 in I.A. No 8762 of 2024 and I.A. No 213 of 2025. 5. Reply has also been filed by the Respondent to the refiling delay condonation application of both the Applicants. In their reply, the Respondent has contended that the explanation furnished by the Applicants for delay in refiling is vague, unsubstantiated and insufficient. On the ground that relocation of the office of the legal counsel had caused the delay, submission was pressed that no evidence has been placed on record to show shifting of the office of their legal counsel nor any evidence provided regarding the purported reconstruction of the case file or digitization of the records. It has also been submitted that the birth of a child of the clerk of the legal counsel which has been raised by Applicants as ground of delay also cannot be a valid legal ground for justifying procedural non-compliance and that the counsel should have made alternate arrangements or filed the same personally if they were genuinely serious about filing the application on time. Submission has also been pressed that the failure to cure the defects in time reflects lack of diligence and that there was no bonafide or compelling reasons to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clearly shows that the Applicant was careless and negligent in making timely corrections. Such lack of earnestness on the part of the Applicants and their counsel does not commend us. 9. We also notice that it has also been admitted by the Applicant that on one occasion when defects were pointed out on 22.04.2024 and 06.05.2024 in I.A. No 8762 of 2024 and I.A. No 213 of 2025 respectively, nearly four month time got consumed to correct these defects. Submission was pressed that this delay was caused because of the birth of a child of the clerk employed in the office of the legal counsel. This explanation fails to impress us. When the process of refiling had already been so delayed, it was incumbent on part of both the litigant and for the counsel to ensure that no further time was lost in the process of refiling the appeal. The birth of a child of the clerk employed in the office of the legal counsel cannot be a valid ground for justifying refiling delay as nothing prevented the counsel from making alternative arrangements in the given circumstances when a lot of delay had already been caused. Therefore, the ground raised about the absence from work on the part of the clerk of t....