DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTION) vs. M/S ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/651/2016HC DelhiDLHC01176830201625 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 990 days did not constitute "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. The grounds of appeals being returned for objections, pendency of numerous cases, and panel re-organization were deemed insufficient. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Furthermore, the Court observed that even on merits, for previous years, the ITAT's finding that the sale of shares and securities did not constitute business income but rather short-term capital gains was not suffering from any infirmity. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of over 990 days. The grounds for condonation of delay included the appeals being returned for removal of objections and the pendency of a large number of cases, as well as a re-organization of the revenue's panel leading to a lack of diligent follow-up. The assessee is M/s Asian Centre for Organisation Research & Development. The assessment years are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue is liable to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the grounds presented. The revenue argued that the delay was caused by the appeals being returned for removal of objections, a large number of pending cases, and a re-organization of the revenue's panel, which prevented diligent follow-up. The assessee did not present any arguments as none appeared. The court also considered the merits of the case, noting that for previous years, the activity of selling shares and securities was held not to constitute business income but short-term capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 651/2016 & CM No. 31015/2016

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

M/S ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

..... 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. 31015/2016 ( condonation of delay) This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The delay is over 990 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 →