Delhi Building & Other Constructionworkers Welfare Board v. Director Of Income Tax (Exemption

$~6 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 497/2017 DELHI BUILDING & OTHER CONSTRUCTIONWORKERS WELFARE BOARD ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASG, GNCTDwith Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv. versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. StandingCounsel ..... Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%17.07.2017 -CM No. 23993/2017 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay in re-filing iscondoned. The application stands disposed of. CM No. 23992/2017 (delay in filing); ITA No. 497/2017 & CM No.23990/2017 2. There is a delay of 304 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offeredin the application reads as under: “3. That after the decision to file the present Appeal wastaken the undersigned counsel was engaged and thepresent form of appeal was drafted and is being filed afterseveral rounds of discussion, during which severaldocuments were required to be examined, as and whenprovided by the Appellant Department after procuringthem from the records of the Ld. Tribunal, whichconsumed a lot of time, the last document having beensupplied in the month of March, 2017.taken the undersigned counsel was engaged and thepresent form of appeal was drafted and is being filed afterseveral rounds of discussion, during which severaldocuments were required to be examined, as and whenprovided by the Appellant Department after procuringthem from the records of the Ld. Tribunal, whichconsumed a lot of time, the last document having beensupplied in the month of March, 2017. ITA 497/2017 Page 1 of 2 4. That the draft thereafter was sent for necessaryapprovals and the same has been vetted and signed and isaccordingly being filed now.” 3. The above explanation offered by the Appellant is insufficient for theCourt to be persuaded to condone the delay. The following observations ofthe Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 are equally applicable to bodies like the Appellant herein: “In our view, it is the right time to inform all thegovernment bodies, their agencies and instrumentalitiesthatunlesstheyhavereasonableandacceptableexplanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort,there is no need to accept the usual explanation that thefile was kept pending for process. The governmentdepartments are under a special obligation to ensure thatthey perform their duties with diligence and commitment.Condonation of delay is an exception and should not beused as an anticipated benefit for the GovernmentDepartments. The law shelters everyone under the samelight and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 4. The above observation has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Stateof U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422. 5. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal isdismissed.dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J. JULY 17, 2017/dkITA 497/2017 PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.