Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel v. M/S Zohra Emporium

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 597/2016, C.M. APPL.29874-29875/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XI ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R05.10.2016 % There is a delay of 661 days in refiling of the appeal. The explanation for the delay and ground for its condonation urged by the revenue is that though originally the appeals were filed within reasonable time, yet, the defective filing led to the return of the papers. The revenue thereafter explains that its panel of Standing Counsel was reorganized and that the erstwhile counsel took time to return the papers after which they were re-examined and re-filed. This explanation cannot be called “sufficient cause”. This Court also notices that the revenue’s appeal in respect of other questions was rejected in ITA 234/2014 (CIT XI v. Zohra Emporium, decided on 10.02.2015). No question of law, therefore, arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J OCTOBER 05, 2016/ajk DEEPA SHARMA, J