COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA ) PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers

ITA/51/2016HC DelhiDLHC01660864201529 January 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM No.965/2016). The Court found the explanation offered by the Revenue for the delay of over two years to be wholly unacceptable. The Court noted that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, scanning machines were made available at the filing counter to assist the bar. As a consequence of dismissing the delay condonation application, the appeal itself was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the substantive appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV (Appellant) filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 815 days in re-filing. The Appellant attributed this delay to the practice directions issued by the Delhi High Court for e-filing of appeals. The Court noted that sufficient time was given for the bar to adapt to e-filing and that scanning machines were provided at the filing counter to facilitate the transition. The Appellant is the Revenue, and the Respondent is GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The assessment years are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 815 days in re-filing the appeal is condonable, considering the explanation provided by the Appellant (Revenue) regarding the practice directions for e-filing. (Question of procedure/law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee regarding the delay. The explanation offered by the Revenue was the standard one concerning e-filing practice directions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the delay was due to the implementation of e-filing practice directions issued by the Court. The Revenue relied on the practice directions as the reason for the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 51/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4. +

ITA 51/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing Counsel.

versus

GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA ) PVT. LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

29.01.2016 CM No.965/2016 1. There is a delay of 815 days in re-filing the appeal. 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 the filing counter 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 two

ITA 51/2016 Page 2 of 2

years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 815 days in re-filing the appeal. CM No.965/2016 is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 29, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →