COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -V vs. M/S DLF BUILDING & SERVICES (P) LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS NACHIKETA REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.]

PDF · subscribers
WTA/3/2016HC DelhiDLHC01652560201529 April 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 reasons provided by the Revenue, attributing the delay to the new e-filing system, to be insufficient. The Court noted that adequate notice was given for the e-filing system and that the Department had a dedicated cell to monitor filings. The Court held that a delay of over two years could not be attributed solely to procedural changes. Furthermore, the Court observed that a previous appeal filed by the Department for the same assessee and Assessment Year 2001-02 (WTA No. 4/2015) was dismissed on November 30, 2015, both on grounds of extraordinary delay and on merits. Consequently, the present appeal was also dismissed, as no substantial question of law arose for determination, in addition to the dismissal on grounds of delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Commissioner of Income Tax –V, filed a Wealth Tax Appeal (WTA No. 3/2016) against an order concerning DLF Building & Services (P) Ltd. (formerly Nachiketa Real Estates (P) Ltd.). The appeal suffered from a delay of 901 days in re-filing. The Department 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 scanning services were available. The Court also observed that the Department has a dedicated cell in the High Court to monitor filings. For the same assessee and Assessment Year 2001-02, a previous appeal (WTA No. 4/2015) was dismissed by the Court on November 30, 2015, for similar reasons of delay and on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal warrants condonation, considering the reasons provided by the Revenue regarding the implementation of a new e-filing system. Assessee (Revenue) Contentions: The Revenue argued that the delay was necessitated by the transition to a new e-filing system which required compliance with new requirements, including the filing of soft copies of paperbooks. They claimed this change in procedure caused the delay. Respondent (Assessee) Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the respondent regarding the delay. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the respondent would have opposed the condonation of delay. The Court also noted that for a previous appeal concerning the same assessee and assessment year, the appeal was dismissed on merits as well.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WTA No. 3/2016

Page 1 of 3

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12. +

WTA 3/2016

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

CM No. 14024/2016 (for exemption)

1.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. WTA 3/2016 & CM No. 14025/2016 (for condonation of delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal)

3.

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. 4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting

WTA No. 3/2016

Page 2 of 3

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. 5. 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.

6.

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. 7. The application bearing CM No.14025/2016 for condonation of the delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.

8.

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

WTA No. 3/2016

Page 3 of 3

delay in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits.

9.

In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination, and the appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of 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 →