ITA No. 3/2010 22.07.2010 Present: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondents. OMP(M) No. 4/2010 This Income Tax appeal is hopelessly time barred. The impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against which the appeal has been filed was passed on 23.2.2005. The applicant alongwith the application has filed an application for condonation of delay, para-2 of which reads as follows:- “2. That the delay in filing the present appeal is for the reason that the appellant company has filed appeal in wrong forum i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court prescribed under the Act on the advice that since the company has a office in Chandigarh the same can be adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 31.5.2007 and returned by the registry due to some objections on 9.7.2007, thereafter it was again re-filed on 18.8.2009 after complying the objections raised by the registry but same was again returned by the registry on the same day i.e. 18.8.2009 with some objections. Thereafter after rectifying the objections raised by the registry, the appeal was again refilled (sic.) on 26.8.2009, which finally came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Court on 2.9.2009 when it was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.8.2009 with some objections. Thereafter after rectifying the objections raised by the registry, the appeal was again refilled (sic.) on 26.8.2009, which finally came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Court on 2.9.2009 when it was dismissed as withdrawn on account of jurisdiction point of being wrongly filed in that Hon’ble Court.” 2. The explanation given is only in respect of the period during which the appeal remained pending in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. There is no explanation whatsoever for the period w.e.f. 23.2.2005 when the impugned order was passed till 31.5.2007 when the appeal was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court was withdrawn in the following terms:- “Allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to any other remedy in accordance with law.” 3. In a case where the petitioner is withdrawing an appeal on the ground that the Court to which the appeal has been presented does not have territorial jurisdiction, such petitioner must state so clearly while withdrawing the appeal. This has not been clearly stated and the order dated 2.9.2009, in our opinion, does not entitle the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. However, assuming that the order permits such an appeal to be filed then also we must be satisfied that there is reasonable explanation to condone the delay. After the appeal was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 31.5.2007, it was returned with objections on 9.7.2007. It remained with the counsel from 9.7.2007 till 18.8.2009 i.e. for 2 years. There is no explanation worth the name why the file remained unattended for 2 years. We had permitted the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit but in the supplementary affidavit also the only explanation is with regard to the period spent in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Even if this period is to be excluded the petitioner despite having been given many opportunities has not given any explanation for the delay from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal till the date it was filed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. If we believe the version of the petitioner that he withdrew the petition from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, since that Court did not have a territorial jurisdiction then he should have immediately approached this Court and filed this appeal within a few days of the passing of the order by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appeal has been filed in this Court on 17.12.2009 and as many as 11 objections were raised by the Registry. Despite these objections being pointed out, these were not removed till February, 2010 and thereafter the Registry raised 7 objections on 24.2.2010. It is only thereafter that the appeal was registered. One of the main objections raised by the Registry is that the petitioner should mention the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. This objection has not been removed till date. This was the most vital date since the limitation would start from the date when the order was served upon the assessee. When this objection was again raised by the Registry on 3.7.2010, the petitioner prayed that the matter may be listed in Court with objections. Despite repeated opportunities no date of receipt of the order has been given. Therefore, the petitioner has miserably failed to give any explanation whatsoever to explain the delay for the period from 23.2.2005 to 31.5.2007 and for the period 15.9.2009 till 17.12.2009. The application is accordingly rejected. ITA No. 3 of 2010 In view of the order passed in the application, the appeal is dismissed as time barred. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. July 22, 2010 (rana)