Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited (Formerly Daburpharma Limited

$~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 259/2017 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStanding Counsel for Revenue. versus FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED (FORMERLY DABURPHARMA LIMITED)..... Respondent ..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, Mr. SharadAgarwal, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%11.07.2017 CM APPL. No. 12303/2017 1. This is an application by the Revenue seeking condonation of the delay infiling the appeal. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 215 days infiling the appeal. According to Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the Revenue, the actual number of days of delay infiling the appeal is 130 days. 2. Under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue alreadyhas a period of four months to file an appeal. This is more than the limitationfor filing appeals under other statutes. Therefore, the requirement of theRevenue having to explain every day's delay, and for cogent and convincingreasons, is a sine qua non. 3. Turning to the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, it is stated in para (2) of the application as under: "2. That the order of the Tribunal was received bythe CIT (Judicial) on 27.06.2016, which was sentto the concerned CIT on 20.07.2016. Thereafter,process of obtaining approval for filing appeal wasinitiated and note for approval was put beforeCCIT on 21.10.2016. The communication forapproval for filing appeal in the present case wasaccordedbytheCCITon31.10.2016.Theapproval regarding filing of appeal before theHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiwasfinallycommunicated to Counsel on 07.11.2016, who,after going through the documents, requested forall the orders/ documents pertaining to assesseementioned in the impugned order/ central scrutinyreport. Since the matter was transferred from onecharge to another, it took some time to collate thedocuments. Thereafter, the appeal was drafted andsent for approval on last week of · December 2016.Some clarifications were sought by the Departmentbeforeapprovingthesameforfilingon04.01.2017. However, in the process, the time limitfor filing appeal expired." 4. The above explanation offered by the Revenue is not satisfactory at all.The internal arrangements in the Appellant Department and the processes ithas evolved for taking a decision for filing an appeal are a matter entirelywithin its domain. It is for the Department to ensure that its processes ensurethat a decision in that regard is taken within time so that the limitationperiod of 120 days is not exceeded. An excuse of administrative delay, withnothing more, cannot constitute a valid justification for the delay, and thattoo of 130 days, i.e. more than four months' delay. 5. To accept the above explanation would be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited(2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein it was observed as under: "In our view, it is the right time to inform all thegovernmentbodies,theiragenciesandinstrumentalities that unless they have reasonableand acceptable explanation for the delay and therewas bonafide effort, there is no need to accept theusual explanation that the file was kept pending forprocess. The government departments are under aspecial obligation to ensure that they perform theirdutieswithdiligenceandcommitment.Condonation of delay is an exception and shouldnot be used as an anticipated benefit for theGovernmentDepartments.Thelawshelterseveryone under the same light and should not beswirled for the benefit of a few." 6. The above observation has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Stateof U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court declines to condone theextraordinary delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. The application is,accordingly, dismissed. ITA 259/2017 8. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 11, 2017/j 6. The above observation has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Stateof U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court declines to condone theextraordinary delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. The application is,accordingly, dismissed. ITA 259/2017 8. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 11, 2017/j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J