COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3 vs. M/S SANTUR DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and insufficient to condone such a significant lapse. The court emphasized that the Department has mechanisms to track appeals and prevent such delays.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 443 days. The reasons provided for the delay included changes in court practice directions and the change of Standing Counsel for the Department.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and justifiable for condonation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No. 360/2013
Page 1 of 2
$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +
ITA 360/2017
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
versus
M/S SANTUR DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. ..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R %
31.05.2017
CM No. 16907/2017
There is an inordinate delay of 443 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paper books in tax matters. Sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paper books. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience, if any, caused to the Advocates and the litigants was minimised. In any event, the change could not have entailed a delay of more than 443 days.
ITA No. 360/2013
Page 2 of 2
Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out a second reason i.e., change of Standing counsel for the Department. This again does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than 443 days to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.
The application for condonation of the delay of 443 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 31, 2017 tp
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026