PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X. vs. S. GOPAL & COMPANY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/107/2016HC DelhiDLHC01604292201529 January 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal was extraordinary and wholly unacceptable. The Court observed that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was given for adaptation, and that scanning machines were provided at the filing counter to facilitate the transition. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the substantive appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-X, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order. There was a delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal. The appellant attributed this delay to the practice directions issued by the Court for e-filing of appeals. The Court noted that practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was given for adaptation, and scanning machines were provided at the filing counter. The Court found the delay of over two years unacceptable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal. This is a question of mixed law and fact, concerning the application of principles for condonation of delay. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue (appellant) argued that the delay was due to the implementation of e-filing practice directions. The Court observed that the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was given for adaptation, and scanning machines were provided. The Court found the explanation for the delay to be wholly unacceptable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 107/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 47. +

ITA 107/2016

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X. ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing Counsel.

versus

S. GOPAL & COMPANY

..... Respondent

Through

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

29.01.2016 CM No.3153/2016 1. There is a delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over two

ITA 107/2016 Page 2 of 2

years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal. CM No.3153/2016 is dismissed. 2. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 29, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →