COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD

ITA - 1185 / 2010HC Delhi26 August 20101 pages

For Petitioner: SUBHASH BANSAL

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that sufficient cause existed for the condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal by the Revenue. The reasoning provided is that "regard being had to the assertions made in the application," the court was of the "considered opinion that sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay." Consequently, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal was condoned. The operative direction was to dispose of the applications for condonation of delay and issue notice to the respondent. The appeal itself was then directed to be linked with another pending appeal and listed for further hearing. No specific substantive issues of the appeal were decided at this stage.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order related to PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd (assessee). The appeal, numbered ITA 1185/2010, was filed before the High Court of Delhi. The Revenue sought condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The assessee was represented by counsel. The High Court considered applications for condonation of delay and, finding sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The court then issued notice to the respondent assessee, who had already entered an appearance through counsel. The appeal was directed to be linked with another appeal, ITA No. 574/2007, and listed for a future date.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal by the Revenue should be condoned. The Revenue contended that sufficient cause existed for the delay. The assessee, through its counsel, did not appear to contest the condonation of delay, but rather had entered an appearance. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the delay. The court was tasked with deciding if the delay warranted condonation based on the assertions made by the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1185/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel . versus . PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE . . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . . O R D E R 26.08.2010 . CM 14494-14495/2010 . These are the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re- filing the appeal. Having heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned counsel for Revenue and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for assessee-respondent and regard being had to the assertions made in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay and accordingly, delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. . ITA 1185/2010 Page 1 of 2 . CMs stand disposed of. . ITA 1185/2010 Issue notice to respondent. As Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondent, no further notice need be issued. Let this appeal be linked with ITA No. 574/2007 and be listed on 27th October, 2010. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 26, 2010 rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1185/2010 Page 2 of 2 . . . #2 $

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →