| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 146 of 2016 & CM No. 5166 of 2016
2020 TaxPub(DT) 5173 (Del-HC)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 260A
Where Department sought condonation of delay of 950 days in re-filing an appeal before High Court on the ground that the delay occurred due to change of Standing Counsel for the Department and failure by earlier Counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect, however, the said ground was not acceptable because it was not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeal and allowed a period of almost two and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed, consequently, the extraordinary delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal would not be condonable.
|
Appeal (High Court) - Condonation of delay - Re-filing of appeal by Department - Inordinate delay---No sufficient reason
Department sought condonation of delay of 950 days in re-filing an appeal before High Court. It was submitted that the delay occurred due to change of Standing Counsel for the Department and failure by earlier Counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. Held: The explanation provided by the Department for condoning the delay was not acceptable because it was not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeal and allowed a period of almost two and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. Further, the Department has a cell in the High Court 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 had not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. In any event, the delay of almost two and a half years on the said ground was wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the extraordinary delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal would not be condonable.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the appellant
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|