COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAHARA INDIA (FIRM)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/518/2017HC DelhiDLHC01031307201714 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of the delay of 1233 days in re-filing the appeal. The Court found the explanation provided by the Department, citing the change of Standing Counsel and the failure of the previous counsel to inform the Department about defects in the filing, to be an unsatisfactory and standard excuse. The Court reasoned that it was improbable that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals for nearly three years and four months. The Court emphasized that the Department has a dedicated cell in the High Court, supervised by a Deputy CIT, which should be responsible for tracking appeals and ensuring timely re-filing. As the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, the appeal itself was consequently dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA 518/2017, was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against Sahara India (Firm) (Respondent). The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 1233 days in re-filing. The Appellant sought condonation of this delay. The High Court of Delhi was considering an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. The procedural history involves the delay in re-filing and the application to condone it.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1233 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the Revenue. This is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and general procedural law. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's explanation for the delay was the change of Standing Counsel and the alleged failure of the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. The Revenue sought condonation of the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~27. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 518/2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Rahul Kaushik, Advocate with

Mr.Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

Versus

SAHARA INDIA (FIRM)

..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Arta Trana Panda, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

14.07.2017 C.M.No.24332/2017 (delay of 1233 days in re-filing) 1. There is an inordinate delay of 1233 days in re-filing the appeal.

2.

The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Dpartment 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 3 years and 4 months 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 ITA 518/2017

Page 1 of 2.

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 1233 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 14, 2017 ‘anb’

ITA 518/2017

Page 2 of 2.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →