PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 1 vs. M/S CHRYS CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay. Arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, sought condonation of a 379-day delay in re-filing an appeal. The respondent/assessee did not oppose the application for condonation of delay.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether to condone the significant delay in re-filing the appeal by the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 588/2023, CAV 550/2023 & CM Nos.54362-63/2023
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 1
..... Appellant Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Zehra Khan, Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S CHRYS CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Mayank Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
18.10.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CAV No.550/2023 1. Mr Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/assessee. 2. In view of the fact that the counsel for the respondent/assessee has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM No.54362/2023 3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No.54363/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 379 days in re-filing the appeal] 4. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
ITA 588/2023
page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:14:36
4.1. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 379 days. 5. Mr Mayank Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 6. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 7. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 588/2023 8. Arguments heard. 9. Judgment reserved. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
OCTOBER 18, 2023
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 588/2023
page 2 of 2
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:14:36
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026