THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the Revenue had sought adjournments on two previous occasions when the matter was listed before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Court found it inappropriate for the Revenue to challenge an order extending the stay, especially when the Revenue was responsible for the delay. The Court expressed doubt about the maintainability of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act in such a scenario. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had extended a stay order. The Revenue's counsel had sought adjournments on the previous two occasions when the matter was listed for hearing before the Tribunal. The High Court noted that the Revenue was at fault for seeking adjournments and questioned the maintainability of the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Tribunal extending a stay is maintainable, when the Revenue itself sought adjournments on previous occasions. The Revenue argued that the appeal was maintainable. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the merits of the stay extension. The judgment does not record any arguments from the Respondent (NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 881/2018
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
versus
NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R %
17.08.2018
The impugned order records that the departmental representatives appearing for the Revenue had on last two occasions asked for adjournments, when the matter was listed for hearing. In these circumstances, we do not appreciate and understand why the Revenue has filed the present appeal, questioning the order passed by the Tribunal extending the stay. Perhaps, Tribunal should not have granted adjournment and heard ex parte arguments. Revenue cannot be allowed to challenge extension of stay, when they are at fault and to be blamed.
We are also doubtful that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is maintainable.
The appeal is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J AUGUST 17, 2018/tp
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- 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
