COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS)-II vs. M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the reasons provided by the revenue for the 945-day delay in refiling the appeal were insufficient to constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. The Court noted the lack of a proper explanation for the delay and the apparent lack of awareness by the department regarding the status of the appeal and the objections raised by the registry. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-II against M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act and were highly belated, with a delay of 945 days in refiling. The Income Tax Department cited the re-organization of its personnel and the pendency of a large number of defective appeals as reasons for the delay. The High Court found these reasons insufficient to condone the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 945 days in refiling the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is condonable. Assessee's Arguments: The judgment does not record any arguments made by the assessee (M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.) regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-II) contended that the delay was caused by the re-organization of its personnel and the pendency of a large number of defective appeals. The revenue sought condonation of the delay to pursue the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~2-6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 655/2016, CM APPL.31165-31166/2016
ITA 656/2016, CM APPL.31167-31168/2016
ITA 657/2016, CM APPL.31171-31172/2016
ITA 658/2016, CM APPL.31173-31174/2016
ITA 659/2016, CM APPL.31179-31180/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R %
26.10.2016
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is highly belated - by 945 days in refiling. There is hardly any explanation for the delay. The appeal was filed on 20.12.2013 but appears to have been kept objected to. The Income Tax Department does not seem to have any clue about the filing of the appeal or the objections raised by the registry. It refers to the re-organisation of its penal and cites the pendency of large number of appeals marked defective. The reasons can hardly be considered sufficient cause to condone the delay.
The application and the appeal are accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 26, 2016/vikas/
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
