DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting the department's failure to provide crucial information and presuming the earlier order had attained finality. The court also criticized the department's lack of systematic case management.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department filed an appeal against an ITAT order that relied on an earlier order for a previous assessment year. The department failed to provide information on whether an appeal was filed against the earlier order or its outcome.
What were the issues?
Whether the department had filed an appeal against a previous ITAT order and its outcome, and the department's failure to provide this information.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 20.08.2009 . Present: Ms. P.L.Bansal, Mr. Paras Chaudhary and Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Kumar and Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocates for the respondent. . . +I.T.A.No. 564/2009 . . The order of the Tribunal clearly reveals that it has relied upon its earlier order passed in the case of assessee itself in respect of earlier Assessment Year i.e. 1989-1990. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 12.9.2008 and the present appeal was filed on 27.3.2009. In these circumstances, the first thing which should have been stated in the appeal is as to whether the department had filed any appeal against the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in respect of Assessment Year 1989-90 or not. Not only there is non-mention of that fact in the appeal, but even today the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to state whether any appeal was filed or not and if filed, the outcome thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that inspite of best efforts to get the aforesaid information, the same is not supplied by the department. As indicated above, the earlier order in respect of Assessment Year 1989-90 and in these circumstances, we fail to understand as to why the department could not supply such information. It appears that the Income Tax Department is not taking care of cases in a systematic and planned manner. We find that such instances are coming before us every day. Learned counsel for the department express their inability to provide such information for lack of instruction from the department. It is high time that Income Tax Department sets its house in order and independent and . . well regulated litigation department is created and the entire record is computerized. In so far as present case is concerned, we are forced to presume that the order passed by the ITAT in earlier year has attained finality and therefore, we are constraint to dismiss this appeal which otherwise also is meritless. Copy of the order shall be sent to Director of Income Tax Exemption, Ayakar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, for necessary compliance. . . A.K.SIKRI, J . . . VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J . August 20, 2009 ib . . #2 .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026