Ita/872/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax--V v. Resistoflex Dynamics (P)Ltd

$~3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 872/2016, CM No.45075/2016COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX--V ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. St. Counsel with Mr.Nitin Gulati, Jr. St. Counsel. Versus RESISTOFLEX DYNAMICS (P)LTD. Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%19.12.2016 The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 seeks to impugn an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dated 06.12.2013 in ITA No. 2554/Del/2013 for theAssessment Year (AY) 2009-10. At the outset, we notice that the Revenue has filed this appealafter an inordinate delay of 646 days. The reason for the delay hasnot been properly explained. A general explanation that the processof e-filing required several procedural compliances which could notbe fulfilled within the time and that the defects pointed out by theRegistry too could not cured since there was overload of work on thepart of the Revenue, is not sufficient cause to warrant condonation ofdelay. Besides, on merits too, the Court notices that the question oflaw urged - whether assembling of the ultimate product i.e. air springs- for use by the railways, which conformed to exact specifications -amounted to process of manufacture or amounted to manufacture.The ITAT concluded on detailed analysis that specialised nature ofthe task showed that the process was manufacture. It also relied uponthe clearances given by various other authorities including the CentralExcise Authorities on the self saying issue. Furthermore, the ITATtook note of the fact that for the previous year, same question hadbeen gone into and a finding was rendered in favour of the assessee. For the above reasons as well as on the ground of delay, nointerference is called for with the order of the ITAT. The appeal isdismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. DECEMBER 19, 2016/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J.