← Library
High Court of DelhiITA/290/2017

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Neeraj Singal

2017-05-16Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Chander Shekhar2 pages

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 290/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus NEERAJ SINGAL ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 16.05.2017 CM No.14177/2014

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.14178/2017

2. There is an inordinate delay of 548 days in re-filing the appeal.

3. The excuse offered is that the appeal was filed by earlier Senior standing counsel who is not anymore on the panel of the department. The fact of defects lying was only noticed recently by the department, after which efforts were made to locate the appeal paper book, and re-filing was done. Further, it is urged that filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters as per the practice directions issued by the court is a much more cumbersome and time consuming process.

ITA No.290 of 2017

4. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than 1 1⁄2 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.

5. As regards the issue of filing of soft copies, 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 11⁄2 years.

6. The application is dismissed.

ITA 290/2017 7.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 16, 2017 tp ITA No.290 of 2017