PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 vs. VINOD GUGNANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 297 / 2023HC Delhi23 May 20232 pages
For Petitioner: SHAILENDERA KISHORE SINGH
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court issued notice to the respondent/assessee regarding the revenue's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court also directed parties to file written submissions.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 5,70,95,075/- because the assessee failed to deposit the entire amount before the due date for filing the return. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal ruled against the revenue.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. The underlying issue concerns a disallowance made by the AO for non-compliance with deposit due dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 297/2023 & CM No.27432/2023

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10.... Appellant Through: Mr Shailendera Singh, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Dacchita Shahi and Mr Viplav Acharya, Standing Counsels along with Mr Akash Saxena, Adv.

versus

VINOD GUGNANI

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

23.05.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.27432/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the appeal] 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 36 days 2. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 3. List the application on 20.11.2023. ITA 297/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 5. The appellant/revenue has laid a challenge to the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. ITA 297/2023

page 1 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:50:03

6.

The record shows that the Assessing Officer (AO) made a disallowance amounting to Rs.5,70,95,075/-, on account of the respondent/assessee failing to make a deposit of the entire amount before the due date prescribed for filing the return, as prescribed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 7. Both, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, have ruled against the revenue and in this context, inter alia, relied upon the following judgments : (i) CIT v. K. Ramachandran Rao [56 Taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka)]. (ii) Venkata Dilip Kumar Kartha - HUF v. CIT [111 Taxman.com 180 (Mad.)] 8. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, will inform the court as to whether any appeal is preferred by the appellant/revenue against the aforementioned judgments. 9. The order passed today will accompany the notice which has been directed to be issued to the respondent/assessee in the above-captioned application. 10. Learned counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least five days before the next date of hearing. 11. List the matter on 20.11.2023. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 23, 2023/aj

Click here to check corrigendum, if any ITA 297/2023

page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:50:03

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →