THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. FORGING LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/154/2016HC DelhiDLHC01676005201529 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 of Delhi dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM APPL No. 5586/2016) filed by the Revenue. The Court found the explanation provided for the 1210-day delay in re-filing the appeal to be unsatisfactory. The Court observed that it was improbable that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals, allowing over three years to pass without re-filing. The Court highlighted that the Department has a dedicated cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT, who should be monitoring the progress of appeals. Consequently, as the delay was not condoned, the appeal itself was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the substantive appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA 154/2016, was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against Forging Ltd (Respondent). The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 1210 days in re-filing. The Department sought condonation of this delay through CM APPL No. 5586/2016. The explanation provided for the delay was the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the alleged failure of the earlier counsel to inform the Department about defects in the appeal filing. The High Court of Delhi was considering this application for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1210 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned by the High Court, turning on the sufficiency of the explanation provided by the Revenue. Assessee (Revenue) Contentions: The Revenue argued that the delay was due to a change in Standing Counsel and the previous counsel's failure to communicate the defects in the appeal filing. Respondent (Assessee) Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the Respondent in the provided judgment. The judgment focuses solely on the Revenue's application for condonation of delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. +

ITA 154/2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Jr. Standing counsel.

versus

FORGING LTD

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

29.02.2016

CM APPL No. 5586/2016 (for 1210 days in re-filing the appeal)

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 1210 days in re-filing the appeal.

2.

The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision ITA 154/2016

Page 1 of 2

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.

3.

The application CM No. 5586/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1210 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

FEBRUARY 29, 2016 Rk

ITA 154/2016

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →