COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NEW DLEHI vs. U. P. DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order. Consequently, following its prior decision in related appeals (ITA 850/2019 and ITA 851/2019 decided on 23.09.2019), the present appeal was found to be without merit. The principle derived is that if an appeal does not present a substantial question of law, it is liable to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi, against the U. P. Distillers Association. The appeal challenges an order passed by an authority, though the specific authority and the assessment year(s) are not detailed in this excerpt. The appeal was filed with a delay of 75 days, for which condonation was sought and granted. A further delay of 16 days in re-filing was also condoned. The High Court noted that it had already considered the impugned order in two other related appeals, ITA 850/2019 and ITA 851/2019, which were decided on 23.09.2019.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the impugned order, requiring the appeal to be admitted for hearing. The appellant (Revenue) contended that there was a question of law that warranted consideration by the High Court. The respondent (Assessee) likely argued that no such question of law arose, or that the lower authorities' decision was correct. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of either side beyond the Revenue's implicit assertion of a question of law and the Court's finding that none arises.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 925/2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NEW DLEHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Junior Standing Counsel. versus U. P. DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 20.11.2019 C.M. No. 47740/2019 (delay) 1. By this application the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the application. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C.M. No. 47741/2019 (delay) 3. By this application the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 16 days in re-filing the application. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 925/2019 5. This Court has already considered the impugned order in ITA 850/2019
and ITA 851/2019, both decided on 23.09.2019. 6. Following the said decision, we do not find any merit in the present appeal since no question of law arises and the same is dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 20, 2019 nk
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
