The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Maruti Udyog Limited

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. + ITA 132/2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocate. versus MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R% 15.02.2016 % CM No.4774/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. -CM No.4775/2016 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) &ITA 132/2016 3. There is an inordinate delay of 975 days in re-filing the appeal. 4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting ITA 132/2016 Page 1 of 2 forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost two years and six months to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. 5. The application bearing CM No.4775/2016for condonation of the delay of 975 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J ITA 132/2016 Page 2 of 2