PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9 vs. M/S WORLD WINDOW IMPEX INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/607/2017HC DelhiDLHC01247668201704 August 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and insufficient. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that government departments have a special obligation to act with diligence.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9, filed an appeal with a delay of 290 days. The reasons provided for the delay related to processing through official channels and fulfilling High Court rules.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10 + ITA 607/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 9

..... Appellant Through:Mr Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Deepak Anand, Advocate

versus

M/S WORLD WINDOW IMPEX INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: None

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

04.08.2017

C.M.No.27838 /2017 (delay of 22 days in re-filing)

1.

The delay of 22 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

C.M.No.27837 /2017 (delay of 290 days in filing) 2. There is a delay of 290 days in filing the present appeal. In the present application for condonation of delay, the reasons furnished are as under: “4. That the Appeal has been filed on the basis of records maintained in the office of concerned Assessing officer. The Appeal has to be processed through official channel/hierarchy and the Appeal has been filed by the Appellant as he is authorized to file Appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA 607/2017

Page 1 of 3

5.

That several orders including the Assessment order, CIT (Appeals) order and orders of the IT AT have been filed along with the Appeal. That as per the requirements of the High Court rules and orders, the typed copies of all the orders is required to be filed along with the Appeal. Beside this, several other compliances have to be fulfilled by the Assessing Officer, which has caused an inadvertent delay of a few days.”

3.

The Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited (2012) 3 SCC 563 observed as under: “In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

4.

The above observation has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422.

5.

Viewed in light of the law explained, the above explanation offered by the Appellant is both unsatisfactory and insufficient for the Court to be persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 344 days in filing the appeal.

ITA 607/2017

Page 2 of 3

6.

The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J AUGUST 04, 2017 rd

ITA 607/2017

Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →