PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/115/2016HC DelhiDLHC01649860201501 February 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 1247 days in re-filing the appeal was extraordinary and wholly unacceptable. The Court reasoned that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, the Court had made provisions, such as scanning machines at the filing counter, to assist the bar. Therefore, the explanation offered by the appellant was not sufficient to justify such a significant delay. The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Indraprastha Gas Limited. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1247 days in re-filing. The appellant attributed this delay to the practice directions issued by the High Court for e-filing of appeals. The Court noted that sufficient time was given for the bar to adapt to e-filing and that scanning machines were provided at the filing counter to facilitate the transition. The Court found the delay of three and a half years to be wholly unacceptable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the extraordinary delay of 1247 days in re-filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. This is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the Court's practice directions and the principles of condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the implementation of e-filing practice directions. The revenue did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the delay in re-filing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 33. +

ITA 115/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate.

versus

INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

01.02.2016 CM No.3680 of 2016 (delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 115 of 2016

1.

There is a delay of 1247 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 three and ITA No.115/2016

page 1 of 2

a half years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1247 days in re-filing the appeal.

2.

The application is dismissed.

3.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed on grounds of extraordinary delay of 1247 days in re-filing the appeal.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 01, 2016/mg

ITA No.115/2016

page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →