COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X vs. SH. AMIT JAIN

PDF · subscribers

ITA/649/2016HC DelhiDLHC01111163201625 October 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the explanations provided by the Revenue for the delay of over 1160 days did not constitute "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. The court found the grounds urged, such as the pendency of other cases and panel re-organization, to be insufficient. Furthermore, the court noted that on the merits of the case for previous years, it had already concluded that the activity of selling shares and securities did not constitute business income but rather short-term capital gains. Therefore, the ITAT's order was not found to suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax-X, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of over 1160 days. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as the appeals being returned for removal of objections and the subsequent re-organization of the revenue's panel, which hindered diligent follow-up. The assessee, Sh. Amit Jain, was represented by none. The High Court was considering the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of over 1160 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is liable to be condoned on the grounds of "sufficient cause"? (Question of fact, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the relevant procedural rules). Assessee's Arguments: None recorded. Revenue's Arguments: 1. The delay occurred because the appeals were returned for removal of objections and could not be refiled within the stipulated time due to a large pendency of cases. 2. The delay was also attributed to a re-organization of the revenue's panel, which prevented diligent follow-up of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 649/2016 & CM No. 31012/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.

versus

SH. AMIT JAIN

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R %

25.10.2016

CM No. 31012/2016 condonation of delay) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The delay is over 1160 days. There is hardly any explanation-the grounds urged are that the appeals were returned for removal of objections but could not be filed within time on account of pendency of a large number of cases. The other ground is that the panel underwent re-organisation and as a result the revenue could not diligently follow up the appeal. Such explanations cannot reasonably be called “sufficient cause” to enable the court to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. Application therefore has no merits. Even otherwise, the court has on the merits for the previous years concluded

that the activity i.e. the sale of shares and securities does not constitute business income of the assessee but rather falls within description of the short term capital gain. Consequently, the ITAT’s order does not suffer from any infirmity. For the above reasons, the application and appeal are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 25, 2016 sapna

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →