PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI vs. RIAZ MUNSHI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court granted the revenue leave to place case papers on record and noted that the ITAT's finding was contrary to the revenue's claim. The court will consider the appeal's viability regarding the delay and the penny stock argument.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT decision concerning long-term capital gains on shares of a penny stock company. The tax impact was below the prescribed threshold limit.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the delay and the tax impact below the threshold, and whether the ITAT's finding on the penny stock company is correct.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 123/2023 & CM Nos.10446-47/2023
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI
..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel.
versus
RIAZ MUNSHI
..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
03.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.10447/2023 1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. ITA 123/2023 & CM No.10446/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the appeal] 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that he will place the case papers which were filed before the statutory authorities on the record of this court. 2.1 Leave in that behalf is granted. 3. Briefly, the case of the appellant/revenue is that the long term capital
ITA 123/2023
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 13:33:42
gain said to have registered by the respondent/assessee concerns scrips of a penny stock company, namely, Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. [hereafter referred to as “EBFPL”]. 4. We may note that the tax impact in the instant appeal is, concededly, below the prescribed threshold limit. 5. Mr Maratha says that this appeal is sustainable because EBFPL is a penny stock company. 5.1. Admittedly, the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] is to the contrary. The appellant/revenue will have to satisfy the Court as regards the viability of the appeal on both counts i.e., delay and the exception adverted to by Mr Maratha. 6. List the matter on 27.04.2023.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 3, 2023
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 123/2023
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 13:33:42
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026