THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
CA/2873/2019HC GujaratGJHC24056532201919 November 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, having considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior standing counsel for the applicant and the averments made in the memorandum of application, was of the view that the delay occasioned in preferring the appeal has been sufficiently explained. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The delay caused in filing the captioned tax appeal was hereby condoned, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The Tribunal's order dated 06.09.2018, which was the subject of the intended appeal, was not adjudicated upon on its merits as the focus was solely on the condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (the applicant/revenue) filed a Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat seeking condonation of a six-day delay in filing a Tax Appeal. The Tax Appeal challenges an order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ in ITA No. 1623/Ahd/2013. The respondent is M/s Adani Infrastructure and Development Pvt Ltd. The applicant's counsel presented arguments, and despite service of notice, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The Court considered the averments made in the application and the submissions advanced.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of six days in filing the Tax Appeal against the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ in ITA No. 1623/Ahd/2013 is sufficiently explained, warranting condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Assessee's Contentions: The applicant (revenue) contended that the delay of six days has been sufficiently explained in the memorandum of application. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue as they were the applicant in this Civil Application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/CA/2873/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2873 of 2019 In F/TAX APPEAL NO. 10393 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus M/S ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 19/11/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation   Act,   1963,   the   applicant   seeks condonation of delay of six days caused in filing the captioned tax appeal, wherein the order dated 06.09.2018   made   by   the   Income   Tax   Appellate Tribunal,   Ahmedabad   Bench   ‘A’   in   ITA   No. 1623/Ahd/2013 is subject matter of challenge. 2. Heard   Mrs.   Mauna   Bhatt,   learned   senior standing   counsel   for   the   applicant.   Despite service of notice of rule, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Page 1 of 2

C/CA/2873/2019 ORDER 3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the   learned   senior   standing   counsel   for   the applicant and more particularly, considering the averments made in the memorandum of application, the court is of the view that the delay that has occasioned   in   preferring   the   appeal   has   been sufficiently

explained.

The

application, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The   delay   caused   in   filing   the   captioned   tax appeal is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →