THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. INDO RAMA SYSNTHETICS (I) LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/885/2018HC DelhiDLHC01172689201829 July 2019Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that in view of the non-compliance with its previous orders directing the production of assessment records and the failure to pay the costs imposed, the Appellant (Revenue) was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Court found it plain that the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to the non-compliance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the grounds of appeal, as the dismissal was purely procedural. The ratio decidendi is that an appellant must comply with court directions and prosecute their appeal diligently; failure to do so, especially when records are lost and costs are not paid, leads to dismissal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4 against Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. for assessment years 2004-2005. The Delhi High Court had previously directed the Revenue to place on record the reasons to believe and the original order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple opportunities and a cost of Rs. 5000/- imposed, the Revenue failed to comply. The Revenue's counsel submitted a letter stating that the assessment records were not traceable. The Court noted the non-compliance and the lack of proof of cost payment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can be prosecuted by the Revenue when the assessment records are not traceable and the Court's directions for production of these records have not been complied with? (Question of law and fact, relating to the procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the original file was not traceable and subsequently provided a letter confirming that the assessment records for the relevant assessment years were not traceable despite efforts. The Revenue sought adjournments to comply with the Court's directions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 885/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh, Sr. standing counsel & Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Junior standing counsel

versus

INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD.

..... Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha & Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R %

29.07.2019

On 29th November, 2018, the following order was passed by this Court. “An adjournment slip has again been circulated by the Revenue, in this appeal in which notice has not been issued.

By the order dated 17th August, 2018, Revenue was directed to place on record copy of the reasons to believe and the original order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter vide order dated 1st October, 2018 another opportunity was granted to the Revenue to comply with the directions given in the order dated 17th August, 2018.

Counsel for the Revenue on instructions states that the original file is not traceable and hence, an adjournment slip has been moved.

We grant another opportunity to the Revenue to comply with directions given in the earlier order within a period of ten weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the

Delhi High Court Bar Association Library Fund. Costs also be deposited within the said period often weeks.

We also clarify that in case records are not available and /or costs are not paid before the next date of hearing, the appeal could be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Relist on 20th February, 2019.”

There is no proof of the cost having been paid as directed by the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has produced before the Court a letter dated 19th February, 2019 written to counsel by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12 (1) stating inter-alia that the assessment records in the case of the Respondent/Assessee for AYs 2004- 2005 “is not traceable after putting all possible efforts”.

In view of the non-compliance of this Court‟s aforementioned order, it is plain that the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J. JULY 29, 2019 mw

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →