THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/68/2016HC DelhiDLHC01658780201527 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 applications for condonation of delay (CM Nos.989-991/2016) and consequently dismissed the appeals (ITA 67/2016 and ITA 68/2016). The Court found the explanation for the delay of over two years and nine months to be wholly unacceptable. The Court reasoned that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, the Court had made provisions such as scanning machines at the filing counter to assist the bar. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded to condone such an extraordinary delay.

What were the facts?

The appeals, ITA 67/2016 and ITA 68/2016, were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV (the Revenue) against the respondent, Indraprastha Gas Ltd. The appeals were filed with an extraordinary delay of 1075 days. The Revenue 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Court should condone the extraordinary delay of 1075 days in re-filing the appeals, given the explanation provided by the Revenue. The Revenue argued that the delay was due to the implementation of e-filing practice directions by the Court. The Revenue contended that this was a standard explanation and implied that the Court should be lenient. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent (assessee) on this issue, as the matter was decided on the delay in re-filing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

o * 4. + 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 67/2016 & CM No.989/2016 TKDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV .... Appellant Through: Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel. versus INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. .... Respondent Through AND + ITA 68/2016 & CM No.990-991/2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-IV Appellant Through: Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel. versus INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD. Respondent Through CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 27.01.2016 1. There is an extraordinary delay of 1075 days in re-filing the appeals. 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 ITA 67-68/2016 Page I of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

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 years and nine months on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1075 days in re-filing the appeals. 2. CM Nos.989-991/2016 are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are / "" \ VJ dismissed. JANUARY 27,2016 MK S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J IT A 67-68/2016 Page 2 of2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →