COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-III vs. S. CHAND AND COMPANY LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/720/2016HC DelhiDLHC01658605201515 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi held that the reasons provided by the Revenue for the delay of 1152 days in filing the appeals were not sufficient cause for condonation. The Court found that the reorganization of the counsel's panel and the pendency of cases, as stated by the Revenue, did not constitute adequate grounds to excuse such a substantial delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and the pending applications. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive issues of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax-III (Revenue), filed two appeals, ITA 720/2016 and ITA 722/2016, against an order concerning S. Chand and Company Ltd. (Assessee). There was a significant delay of 1152 days in the filing and refilling of these appeals. The Revenue attributed this delay to the reorganization of its counsel's panel twice and the unusual pendency of cases. The High Court of Delhi was considering whether to condone this delay and proceed with the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1152 days in filing the appeals is sufficiently explained by the Revenue to warrant condonation. (Question of fact) Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The delay was caused by the reorganization of its counsel's panel twice and the unusual pendency of cases. These circumstances, it was contended, prevented timely filing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~4 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 720/2016, C.M. APPL.39117/2016 + ITA 722/2016, C.M. APPL.39119-39120/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant

Versus

S. CHAND AND COMPANY LTD.

..... Respondent Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Standing Counsel, for revenue, in Item Nos. 4 and 6.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

15.11.2016

There is a delay of 1152 days in the filing and refilling of this appeal. It is not explained adequately; the revenue says that the reorganization of its counsel’s panel twice and the unusual pendency of cases were reasons for its not filing the appeal in time. Neither of these can be called sufficient cause persuading the Court to condone the delay. The appeal and the pending applications are accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 15, 2016/ajk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →