COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SARANJEET SINGH KHOSLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/238/2016HC DelhiDLHC01094019201606 April 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 dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM No.12620/2016). The Court found the explanation provided by the Department for the 950-day delay to be unsatisfactory. The Court observed that it was not plausible that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals, allowing a period of over two and a half years to elapse before re-filing. The Court highlighted the existence of a High Court cell supervised by a Deputy CIT, which should track the filing of appeals. The Court held that the standard excuse of change of counsel was not impressive and that the Department should have mechanisms to monitor such matters. Consequently, as the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the appeal itself was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the substantive appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi. There was an inordinate delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal. The appellant sought condonation of this delay by filing an application (CM No.12620/2016). 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 the appeal lying in defect. The appeal was filed against an order or action that is not specified in the provided text. The respondent is Shri Saranjeet Singh Khosla. The assessment year(s) are not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant (Revenue)? (Question of fact and procedure, turning on the Court's discretion regarding condonation of delay). Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: Argued that the delay was due to the change of Standing Counsel and the failure of the previous counsel to inform the Department about defects in the filing. The Revenue sought condonation of the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 23. +

ITA 238/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Aamir Aziz, Advocate.

versus

SHRI SARANJEET SINGH KHOSLA

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

06.04.2016 CM No.12620/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 238/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 950 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 two and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be

re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision 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.12620/2016 for condonation of the delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 06, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →