PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court condoned the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
What were the facts?
The appellant (revenue) sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The respondent (assessee) did not oppose the delay condonation.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal. The secondary issue was the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal due to jurisdictional reasons.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 202/2023
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2
..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and Ms Hemlata Rawat, Advocates.
versus
M/S AVANTHA REALTY LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Upvan Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
10.04.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 16604/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 16605/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal] 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 200 days. 3. Counsel for the respondent/assessee says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 202/2023
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 14:16:23
ITA 202/2023 6. Mr Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that since the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, he has instructions to withdraw the above-captioned appeal, with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court. 6.1 The request is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent/assessee. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant/revenue to approach the appropriate High Court, albeit, as per law.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 10, 2023 / tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 202/2023
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 14:16:23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026