COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD

ITA - 1187 / 2010HC Delhi26 August 20101 pages

For Petitioner: SUBHASH BANSAL

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court found that sufficient cause existed for the delay, based on the assertions made in the application for condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The appeal was then admitted, and notice was issued to the respondent assessee. The operative direction was to list the appeal for further hearing on a specified future date, linked with another pending appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive appeal.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) against an order related to assessment year(s) not specified in the provided text. The assessee is PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd. The appeal was filed with a delay. The Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court also issued notice to the respondent assessee, who was represented by counsel. The appeal was then directed to be linked with another appeal, ITA No. 574/2007, and listed for a future date.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay in re-filing the appeal filed by the Revenue? (Question of procedure). The Revenue argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay in re-filing the appeal. The assessee did not present any arguments against the condonation of delay, as indicated by the court's observation that counsel for the assessee entered appearance and the court proceeded to allow the application. No specific legal provisions were named in relation to this procedural issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 1187/2010 . 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 14497/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM 14496/2010 . This is the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. . . . ITA 1187/2010 Page 1 of 2 . 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 re- filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. ITA 1187/2010 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 1187/2010 Page 2 of 2 . #14 $

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →