DIRECTOR OF INCOME TEX(EXTENTION) vs. M/S HAMDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/88/2017HC DelhiDLHC01174377201614 February 2017Bench: 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 Income Tax Department for the 935-day delay in filing the appeal were insufficient to condone the delay. The court found the explanation regarding the re-organization of counsel and the pendency of defective appeals to be hardly sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself were dismissed. No specific amount in dispute or assessment year was mentioned in the judgment.

What were the facts?

The appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Director of Income Tax (Extension) against M/s Hamdard Education Society, was highly belated by 935 days. The appeal was filed on 20.11.2013. The Income Tax Department cited the re-organization of its panel of counsel and the pendency of a large number of defective appeals as reasons for the delay. The High Court of Delhi was hearing the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 935 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sufficiently explained and can be condoned? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the delay was caused by the re-organization of its panel of counsel and the pendency of numerous defective appeals. The Assessee did not present any arguments as none were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 88/2017, CM APPL.3693-3694/2017

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXTENSION) ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel.

versus

M/S HAMDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Respondent

Through: None.

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

O R D E R %

14.02.2017

The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is highly belated - by 935 days. There is hardly any explanation for the delay. The appeal was filed on 20.11.2013 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 panel of counsel 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

NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 14, 2017 /vikas/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →