THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. ESPIRE INFRASTRUCTURE CORP. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/49/2016HC DelhiDLHC01660003201529 January 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. The Court found the explanation provided by the revenue for the inordinate delay of 1090 days to be unconvincing. It was observed that it is improbable that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals for almost three years. The Court highlighted the existence of a dedicated cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT, which should be responsible for tracking appeals and ensuring timely re-filing. The Court stated that the standard excuse of change of counsel and lack of communication was not acceptable. Consequently, as the delay condonation application was dismissed, the appeal itself was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV (the appellant/revenue) filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There was an inordinate delay of 1090 days in re-filing the appeal. The revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing the change of Standing Counsel and the failure of the previous counsel to inform the department about defects in the filing. The High Court noted that this was a common excuse provided by the department in similar delay condonation applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1090 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of fact) Assessee's Arguments: The judgment does not record any arguments made by the assessee (Espire Infrastructure Corp. Ltd.) in this matter. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the delay was attributable to the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure of the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. They sought condonation of the delay on this basis.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 49/2016

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2. +

ITA 49/2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel.

versus

ESPIRE INFRASTRUCTURE CORP. LTD ..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

29.01.2016

CM No. 963/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 49/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 1090 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 almost 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 of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and

ITA No. 49/2016

Page 2 of 2

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 for condonation of the delay of 1090 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 29, 2016/dn

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →