THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TARPIM OVERSEAS P.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 594 / 2007HC Delhi04 July 20071 pages
For Petitioner: R.D.JOLLY
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the explanations for the delay to be contradictory and insufficient. The Court also noted the absence of an affidavit from a responsible officer supporting the condonation application.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal with a significant delay of almost two years in refiling. The explanation for the delay involved difficulties in locating documents due to departmental restructuring and the file getting mixed up with another case.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in refiling the appeal by the Revenue was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation by the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 594/2007 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through:Mr.R.D.Jolly, Adv. versus . TARPIM OVERSEAS P.LTD. ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA . O R D E R 04.07.2007 . CM No.8382/2007 There is a considerable delay of almost two years in refiling the appeal. It is true that the appeal was refiled from time to time but the objections raised by the Registry were not removed. The delay in refiling has been explained by stating that some of the documents were located late on account of restructuring in the department. The only documents on record are the assessment order passed by the ITA 594/2007 Page 1 of 3 Assessing Officer, the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We are unable to understand what was the difficulty in getting these orders and what restructuring was going on which made it difficult for the Revenue to locate these orders. It is then stated that the file got mixed up with another case. This is in stark contrast to what has been stated in the previous paragraphs of the application. We also find that the application for condonation of delay in refiling is not supported by the affidavit of any responsible officer of the Income Tax Department. We get the unfortunate feeling that the Income Tax Department assumes that any delay caused in filing or refiling an appeal will automatically be condoned by this Court without much ado. It is high time that we dispel any such doubts and make it explicit that matters are required to be taken up with all due earnestness by the Income Tax Department, which is filing almost 100 appeals every month. ITA 594/2007 Page 2 of 3 Since application for condonation of delay does not show any sufficient cause, it is dismissed. ITA 594/2007 . . Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the ITA is also dismissed. . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . V.B. GUPTA, J JULY 04, 2007 Bisht . . ITA 594/2007 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →