THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S FOCUS AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/285/2017HC DelhiDLHC01137119201612 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Court reasoned that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after due consultation and with adequate time for the bar to adapt. Furthermore, the Court had provided scanning machines at filing counters to facilitate the transition. The Court found the explanation offered for the delay of over three years to be wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court was not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1313 days in re-filing the appeal. As a result, the appeal itself was dismissed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of delay.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 7th December, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2569/Del/2012, pertaining to Assessment Year 2003-04. The appeal was filed with an extraordinary delay of 1313 days in re-filing. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing standard reasons related to practice directions for e-filing of appeals issued by the High Court. The High Court noted that practice directions were issued after consultation and with sufficient time for adaptation, and that scanning machines were provided. The Court found the delay of over three years unacceptable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the extraordinary delay of 1313 days in re-filing the Revenue's appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the ITAT's order dated 7th December, 2012, for Assessment Year 2003-04? The Revenue contended that the delay was attributable to the implementation of new e-filing practice directions issued by the Court. The Revenue argued that these new procedures caused the delay in re-filing the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Respondent (Focus Agro Products Ltd.) on this issue, as none appeared.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.285/2017

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2 + ITA 285/2017

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel

versus

FOCUS AGRO PRODUCTS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

12.05.2017

CM No. 14171/2017 1. This application seeking condonation of an extraordinary delay of 1313 days in re-filing the appeal of the Revenue under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against an order dated 7th December, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2569/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2003-04.

2.

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 filing counters so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over three years on this ground is wholly

ITA No.285/2017

Page 2 of 2

unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1313 days in re-filing the appeal.

3.

The application for condonation of the delay of 1313 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.

ITA No. 285/2017 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 12, 2017 b

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →