$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 147/2026 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Adv.

versus KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026 CM APPL. 12096/2026

1. The office has pointed out that there is a delay of 475 days in refilling the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed any indulgence to be granted to the appellant by pointing out that such a huge delay has been prayed to be condoned without mentioning any plausible reason.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that though delay in refilling is substantial (475 days), but since such delay is only procedural and attributable to the advocate and also because the delay does not render the appeal per se non maintainable, we are inclined to condoned the delay. The delay of 475 days is, therefore, condoned.

4. The application stands allowed.

CM APPL. 12095/2026

5. In relation to the instant application as well, learned counsel