DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXAMPTION) NEW DELHI vs. KHATRI TRUST
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal along with the accompanying applications. The Court held that the explanation provided by the Revenue for the inordinate delay of four years was grossly inadequate. Neither the existence of a backlog of appeals nor the change of panel counsel could be considered 'sufficient cause' for condoning such a significant delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the tax effect was below the stipulated threshold of ₹20,00,000/-. Additionally, the issue raised in the appeal was already covered by a prior decision of the High Court in ITA No. 162/2001 (Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Khetri Trust). The ratio decidendi is that administrative reasons like backlog and change of counsel, without more, do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delay, especially when the tax effect is low and the issue is covered by precedent.
What were the facts?
The Director of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order concerning Khatri Trust (the Assessee). The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of four years. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing a backlog of appeals and a change in panel counsel as reasons. The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the stipulated amount of ₹20,00,000/-. The High Court also observed that the issue raised in the appeal was covered by a previous ruling of the same court in ITA No. 162/2001, Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Khetri Trust, decided on July 17, 2014.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of four years in filing the appeal by the Revenue is liable to be condoned on the grounds of a backlog of appeals and change of panel counsel? (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under relevant procedural rules). Assessee's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the Assessee as none appeared. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue contended that the delay was attributable to a huge backlog of appeals and a change in its panel counsel, which it argued constituted sufficient cause for condonation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 167/2017 & CM Nos. 7342-43/2017 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXAMPTION) NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. Versus KHATRI TRUST ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 22.02.2017 The appeal is hit by an inordinate delay – of merely four years. The explanation given in support of the application for condonation of delay is grossly inadequate. The reasons cited are that the Revenue had to deal with a huge backlog of appeals and that it had changed its panel counsel. Neither of these can be considered as ‘sufficient cause’ warranting condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the Court notices that the issue urged is covered by a previous ruling of this Court in ITA No. 162/2001 i.e. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Khetri Trust – decided on 17.07.2014. Furthermore, the tax effect is less than the stipulated amount of `20,00,000/-. The appeal alongwith accompanying applications is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2017/sb
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
