PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3 vs. JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/23/2017HC DelhiDLHC01204193201620 February 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay. It found that the explanation offered by the Revenue, which was that defective filing led to the return of papers, could not be considered "sufficient cause" for the extensive delays of 760 and 811 days. Consequently, in view of the dismissal of the condonation applications, the main appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of both the delay condonation applications and the appeals. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided.

What were the facts?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-3 (Revenue) filed two appeals, ITA 9/2017 and ITA 23/2017, against Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (Assessee). The appeals were filed with significant delays of 760 days and 811 days, respectively, in refiling. The Revenue sought condonation of these delays, attributing them to defective filing which led to the return of the papers. The High Court of Delhi was considering these applications for condonation of delay and the main appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the explanation provided by the Revenue for the inordinate delay in refiling the appeals constitutes "sufficient cause" for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Revenue argued that the delay was due to defective filing and the subsequent return of papers. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal had to decide if this explanation was acceptable to overcome the substantial delay in bringing the appeals before the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~4 & 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 9/2017, C.M. APPL.825-826/2017 + ITA 23/2017, C.M. APPL.863-864/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant

versus

JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. Ms. Kavita Jha and Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

20.02.2017

C.M. APPL. 826/2017 in ITA 9/2017 C.M. APPL. 864/2017 in ITA 23/2017

There is a delay of 760 days (in ITA 9/2017) and 811 days (in ITA 23/2017) in refilling respectively. The explanation for the delay and ground for its condonation urged by the Revenue is that though originally the appeals were filed within reasonable time, yet, the defective filing led to the return of the papers. This explanation cannot be called “sufficient cause”. The applications are accordingly dismissed. ITA 9/2017, C.M. APPL. 825/2017 ITA 23/2017, C.M. APPL. 863/2017 In view of the orders passed today in C.M. Appl.826/2017 and 864/2017, the appeals along with the pending applications are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 20, 2017/ajk

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →