What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal as not pressed, and the court granted liberty to approach them again if necessary.

The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which was delayed by 61 days. The respondent did not oppose the condonation of delay. The appellant later decided not to press the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant also sought to withdraw the appeal without prejudice.

Raman Chawla vs PCIT | Delhi High Court 2023

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 346/2023

RAMAN CHAWLA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates

versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-21 & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing counsel with Zehra Khan, Jr Standing Counsel

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

06.07.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

CM No. 33610/2023 1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the orders, at least three days before the next date of hearing. CM APPL.33611/2023 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 61 days. 3. Mr Kunal Sharma, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 5. The application is disposed of.

ITA 346/2023

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 13:14:05

ITA 346/2023

After some arguments, Mr Salil Kapoor, on instructions, says that he does not press the appeal and instead would like to press the miscellaneous application, which is pending adjudication before the Income Tax Tribunal, albeit with liberty to approach the court, if necessary, pursuant to the decision rendered in the said application. 7. The appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Liberty as sought is granted. 8. It is made clear, though, that as and when the appellant chooses, if at all, to approach the court by way of an appropriate action, the tenability of the said action will be examined at that stage.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J JULY 6, 2023/as

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 346/2023

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 13:14:05

RAMAN CHAWLA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-21 & ANR.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments