Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~44 to 50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 465/2023 + ITA 511/2023 + ITA 512/2023 + ITA 513/2023 + ITA 514/2023 + ITA 515/2023 + ITA 516/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr Standing Counsel.
versus
RAJNISH TALWAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
O R D E R %
11.09.2023 , [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.42427/2023 in ITA 465/2023 CM No.46468/2023 in ITA 511/2023 CM No.46471/2023 in ITA 512/2023 CM No.46513/2023 in ITA 513/2023 CM No.46515/2023 in ITA 514/2023 CM No.46517/2023 in ITA 515/2023 CM No.46530/2023 in ITA 516/2023 ITA 465/2023 & connected matters
page 1 of 3 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 13:11:32
The above-captioned appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 [ITA No.465/2023]; AY 2016-17 [ITA No.511/2023]; AY 2011-12 [ITA No.512/2023]; AY 2014-15 [ITA No.513/2023]; AY 2013-14 [ITA No.514/2023]; AY 2015-16 [ITA No.515/2023] and AY 2012-13 [ITA No.516/2023]. 2. Via these appeals which, have been preferred by the appellant/revenue, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 19.01.2021, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. Mr Kapil Goel, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that there has been a delay in filing the appeals as well, apart from the delay in re-filing the appeals. 4. Since the appellant/revenue has not moved any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, the Registry will submit a report as to whether or not there has been a delay in filing the appeals. 4.1 In case, the Registry finds that there has been a delay in filing the appeals, it shall quantify the number of days of delay. 5. Broadly, the Tribunal has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee on the ground that the JCIT did not apply his mind while granting the approval. 6. According to the Tribunal, the approval was granted in a mechanical fashion as the JCIT had not inquired as to whether there was any incriminating material in each of the AYs. 7. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, says that this issue also arises in a bunch of
ITA 465/2023 & connected matters
page 2 of 3
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 13:11:32
matters including ITA 273/2022, titled PCIT vs Sanjay Duggal. 7.1 We are told that the said appeals are listed on 13.10.2023. 8. Accordingly, list the matters on 13.10.2023
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2023/RY
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 465/2023 & connected matters
page 3 of 3 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 13:11:32