COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. M/S RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/953/2016HC DelhiDLHC01111225201630 January 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The Court found the explanation provided by the Revenue for the inordinate delay of 693 days to be unconvincing and utterly untenable. The reasons cited by the Revenue, namely the pendency of numerous appeals, administrative challenges stemming from insufficient manpower, and alterations in their legal counsel, were not considered "sufficient causes" to justify the delay. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. In light of the dismissal of the delay condonation applications, the appeals themselves were also dismissed. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the substantive income tax issues, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-V (the Revenue) against M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. (the assessee). The appeals were filed for assessment years not specified in the judgment. The appeals were significantly delayed by 693 days. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as the pendency of a large number of appeals, administrative difficulties due to manpower inadequacy, and changes in the panel of its counsel. The High Court of Delhi was hearing these appeals. The judgment also notes that one of the judges, Najmi Waziri, J, had booked a flat with the respondent assessee, the possession of which had not been handed over, but both parties had no objection to the bench hearing the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 693 days in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned by the High Court. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions from the assessee regarding the delay or the merits of the appeals. The assessee's counsel appeared and did not object to the bench hearing the matter. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the delay was caused by the pendency of a large number of appeals, administrative difficulties due to manpower inadequacy, and changes in the panel of its counsel. These reasons were presented as sufficient cause for the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~8 to 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 953/2016, C.M. APPL.48248-48249/2016 + ITA 954/2016, C.M. APPL.48250-48251/2016 + ITA 955/2016, C.M. APPL.48252/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

..... Appellant

versus

M/S RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

..... Respondent Through : Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Vikrant. A. Maheshwari, Advocate, for appellant, in Item Nos.8 to 10. Sh. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Rano Jain and Sh. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates, for respondents, in Item Nos. 8 to 10.

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

O R D E R %

30.01.2017

It is stated that Najmi Waziri, J had booked a flat in one of the projects of the respondent assessee the possession of which has not been handed over. Learned counsel for the parties express that they have no objection with the present Bench hearing the matter.

C.M. APPL.48249/2016 in ITA 953/2016

C.M. APPL.48251/2016 in ITA 954/2016

C.M. APPL.48252/2016 in ITA 955/2016

The appeals are inordinately delayed by 693 days. The Revenue’s explanation, as part of its application for condonation of delay is not only unconvincing but utterly untenable. It states that the pendency of a large number of appeals, administrative difficulties by Page 1 of 2

reason of manpower inadequacy and the changes in the panel of its counsel led to the delay in refiling. These are not “sufficient causes” to persuade the Court to condone the delay. The applications are accordingly dismissed. ITA 953/2016, ITA 954/2016 & ITA 955/2016

In view of the orders made in C.M.Appl.48249/2016, 48251/2016 & 48252/2016, the appeals are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 30, 2017/ajk

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →