COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -V vs. M/S DLF BUILDING & SERVICES (P) LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS NACHIKETA REAL ESTATES (P), LTD.]
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal. The Court found the Revenue's explanation regarding the e-filing system to be a standard excuse and insufficient to justify a delay of over two years. The Court emphasized that the Department has a dedicated cell to monitor appeal filings and that such a significant delay indicated a lack of follow-up. Furthermore, the Court noted that a similar appeal for the same assessee and Assessment Year 2001-02 (WTA No. 4/2015) had already been dismissed on November 30, 2015, for extraordinary delay and on merits. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination and dismissed the appeal on both grounds of extraordinary delay and merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax –V (the Petitioner/Revenue) filed a Writ Tax Appeal (WTA) No. 1/2016 against DLF Building & Services (P) Ltd. (the Respondent/Assessee). The appeal was re-filed with a delay of 901 days. The Revenue attributed this delay to the implementation of a new e-filing system requiring soft copies of paperbooks. The High Court noted that sufficient notice was given for the e-filing system and that the delay of over two years was not justifiable, especially given the presence of a dedicated cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT to monitor appeal filings. The Court also observed that for the same assessee and Assessment Year 2001-02, a previous appeal (WTA No. 4/2015) was dismissed on November 30, 2015, for similar reasons of extraordinary delay and on merits.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal filed by the Revenue, considering the reasons provided. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The delay was caused by the implementation of a new e-filing system requiring soft copies of paperbooks, necessitating new arrangements. 2. Whether a substantial question of law arises for determination in the appeal, warranting its admission on merits. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. However, the judgment implies the Revenue sought to argue the merits of the appeal. 3. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on grounds of extraordinary delay in re-filing and/or on merits, similar to a previous appeal for the same assessee and AY 2001-02.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WTA No. 1/2016
Page 1 of 3
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10. +
WTA 1/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
DLF BUILDING & SERVICES (P) LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS NACHIKETA REAL ESTATES (P), LTD.] ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R %
29.04.2016
WTA 1/2016 & CM No. 14021/2016 (for condonation of delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal)
The delay in re-filing the appeal, as calculated by the Registry, is 901 days. The reasons adduced for the delay is that in terms of the changed system of e-filing of the appeals, the Department had to make the necessary arrangements for complying with the new requirements. 2. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.
WTA No. 1/2016
Page 2 of 3
As regards this ground, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience, if any, caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years.
It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than two years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. 5. The application bearing CM No.14021/2016 for condonation of the delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.
Even on the merits, the Court finds that for the same Assessee for the AY 2001-02 the appeal filed by the Department (WTA No. 4/2015) was dismissed on 30th November 2015 both on the grounds of extraordinary delay in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits.
In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination, and the appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of
WTA No. 1/2016
Page 3 of 3
extraordinary delay in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 29, 2016/dn
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
