Director Of Income Tax-Iiappellantthrough:mr.ashokk.manchanda,Seniorstanding Counsel v. Sheraton Internationalinc.through; Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

$~ *IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI 6. +ITA 53/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-IIAppellantThrough:Mr.AshokK.Manchanda,SeniorStanding counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONALINC.Through; Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. Respondent 8.+ WITH ITA 55/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-IIAppellantThrough:Mr.AshokK.Manchanda,SeniorStanding counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC.Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. Respondent AND ITA 56/2016 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II AppellantThrough: Mr.AshokK.Manchanda, SeniorStanding counsel. versus SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC. Respondent ITANos. 53/2016,55/2016& 56/2016 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of3 CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER%29.01.2016 CM No. 968/2016 (for exemption)in ITA No. 55/2016 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CM No. 966/2016(for condonationof delay of 860 days in re-filingtheappeal)& ITA No. 53/2016CM No. 969/2016 (for condonationof delay of 1185 days in re-filing theappeal)& ITA No. 55/2016CM No. 970/2016 (for condonationof delay of 1185 days in re-filing theappeal)& ITA No. 56/2016 3. There is an inordinate delay of 860 days in re-filing ITA No. 53/2016 and1185 days each in re-filing ITA Nos. 55/2016 and 56/2016. 4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is puttingforth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appealis that there was a change of counsel. 5. The ground is entirelyunconvincing.It is not possible to accept that noone followedup on the filing of appealsand alloweda periodof more thantwo years to elapsebeforethe appealcouldbe re-filed.The Departmenthasa cell in the High Courtwhich is underthe supervisionof a DeputyCIT. He ITA Nos. 53/2016,55/2016&56/2016 ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to knowif any appeal entrustedto the panel counsel for filing has not been listedeven once before the Court for a long time. 6. Neverthelesseach of the cases has been examined on merits as well. 7. The issue urged by the Revenue stands covered in favour of the Assesseein light of the decision of this Court in the Assessee's own case reported asDirector of IncomeTax v. SheratonInternationalInc. (2009) 313 ITR267. 8.Consequently,theappealsaredismissedbothongroundof theextraordinary delay in re-filing the appeals as well as on merits. S. MURALIDHAR,J JANUARY 29, 2016 dn VIBHU BAKHRU, J