COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- III vs. SHUBHANI ENGINEERING & CONSULTANT PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the explanation provided by the Revenue for the delay of 997 days in re-filing the appeals, namely a change in the official panel and unusual pendency of cases, did not constitute sufficient cause warranting condonation. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. As a direct result of the dismissal of the condonation applications, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed. The Tribunal's order was not adjudicated on its merits.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-III) is aggrieved by a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to three assessment years. The Revenue filed appeals before the High Court of Delhi, but these appeals were filed with a significant delay of 997 days in re-filing. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to a change in the official panel and unusual pendency of cases. The assessee is Shubhani Engineering & Consultant Pvt. Ltd.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 997 days in re-filing the appeals by the Revenue is liable to be condoned? (Question of fact) The Revenue argued that the delay was caused by a change in the official panel and an unusual pendency of cases, which they contended constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the delay.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
> $-2-4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 704/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- III Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advs. versus SHUBHANI ENGINEERING & CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through + ITA 705/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- III Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advs. versus SHUBHANI ENGINEERING & CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through + ITA 706/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- III Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advs. versus SHUBHANI ENGINEERING & CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. Respondent Through Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 09.11.2016 ITA No. 704/2016 & CM Nos. 37497/2016 rexemption) & 37498/2016 Ccondonation of delay of 997 days in re-filing) ITA No. 705/2016 & CM No. 37499/2016 ^condonation of delay of 997 days in re-filingl ITA No. 706/2016 & CM Nos. 37500/2016 rexemption) & 37501/2016 ^condonation of delay of 997 days in re-fllingl The Revenue is aggrieved by a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of three assessment years. At the outset we notice that the appeals are hopelessly time barred; Revenue has expended over 900 days in re-filing the appeals. The explanation given is that the official panel was changed and that there was an unusual pendency of cases. This can hardly be categorized as sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay. The applications for condonation of delay are, accordingly, dismissed. That means that appeals too are, accordingly, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 09, 2016/kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
