Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhubaneswar & Anr v. Mr. T.k. Satpathy, Sr. Standing Counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK I.T.A. No. 1 of 2022 Barunei Roller Flour Mill (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar ….. AppellantMr. T.P. Acharya, Advocate Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhubaneswar & Anr. Vs. ….. Respondents Mr. T.K. Satpathy, Sr. Standing Counsel CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 03.11.2023 ITA No.1 of 2022 And I.A. No.2 of 2022 Order No.This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 6 2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 2. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1623 days in filing the appeal. 3. Heard Mr. T.P. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.K. Satpathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. appellant and Mr. T.K. Satpathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. T.P. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that though it has been shown there is delay of 1623 days in filing the appeal by the Stamp Reporter, actually there is no delay. He orally stated that earlier the appellant had filed W.P.(C) No.8928 of 2017 challenging the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack in ITA No.242/CTK/2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.03.2021 giving liberty to the appellant to file the present appeal. Accordingly, the appellant applied for certified copy of the said order, but due to COVID-19 pandemic situation it could not file the present appeal immediately. 4. On perusal of the records, it appears that the Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 1623 days in filing the appeal and each day delay has not been properly explained. Rather the appellant has pleaded in paragraphs-2 & 3 of the Interlocutory Application to the following effect. “2. That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack having passed an exparte order by rejecting the application for adjournment as filed by the petitioner’s counsel without giving any valid reason and also dismissing the appeal, the petitioner thereafter had filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.(C) no.8928 of 2017 challenging the said order passed in appeal. While disposing of the writ petition the Hon’ble Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file the present appeal. 3. That however, after disposal of the writ petition on 31.03.2021 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order which is yet to be received and further due to the COVID 19 Pandemic the petitioner could not immediately filed the present appeal, but however, there being no sign of improvement in the Pandemic situation and the certified copy yet to be received hence, without any further delay the petitioner is filing the present appeal.” 5. Since each day delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in State of Orissa and another v. Bishnupriya Routray and another, 118 (2014) CLT 588, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 1623 days in filing the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed and consequentially, the main case, i.e. I.T.A. No.1 of 2022 stands dismissed. Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYDesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTDate: 06-Nov-2023 13:13:32