What did the High Court hold?

The Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, noting the lack of follow-up by the Department. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, filed an appeal with a delay of 1045 days in re-filing. The Department's explanation for the delay was the change of Standing Counsel and failure to inform about defects in the filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

CIT vs M/S Indo Gulf Industries Ltd | Delhi High Court 2017

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11 +

ITA 599/2016 & CM APPL 29877/2016 (delay)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates.

versus

INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LTD

..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017

CM APPL 29877/2016 (delay of 1045 days in re-filing) & ITA 599/2016 1. There is an inordinate delay of 1045 days in re-filing the appeal.

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 the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision ITA 599/2016

Page 1 of 2

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 1045 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm

ITA 599/2016

Page 2 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 53 +

W.P.(C) 4441/2017 & CM APPL 19390/2017 (stay)

LS CABLE & SYSTEM LTD

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Shashi Mathews, Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Rachana Yadav,Mr. Kishore Kunal and Mr. Manish Rastogi, Advocates.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017

Notice. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. A complete set of paper book be supplied to him during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the Respondents seeks time to obtain instructions.

List on 30th May, 2017.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 63 +

W.P.(C) 4497/2017 & CM APPL 19649/2017 (stay)

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Shashi Mathews, Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Rachana Yadav,Mr. Kishore Kunal and Mr. Manish Rastogi, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior standing counsel for R-2 to R-4.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition at this stage with liberty to urge all the points raised in this petition before the adjudicating authority including the question regarding jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The pending application also stands dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 66 +

W.P.(C) 4500/2017

GYPSUM STRUCTURAL INDIA PVT LTD .... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017

WP (C) 4500/2017 1. Notice. Mr. Siddharth Dutta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He seeks time to obtain instructions.

List on 29th May, 2017.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 +

ITA 407/2017

INTERATED DATA BASE & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.

..... Appellant

Through: Ms. Shyamalima Borah, Advocate

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017

CM APPL 18642/2017 (For exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

ITA No. 407/2017 2. At the request of learned counsel for the Appellant, adjourned to 7th July, 2017.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 8 +

W.P.(C) 3837/2017

H.P. & SONS & ANR

..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior counsel with Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate.

versus

DGIT (INVESTIGATION), DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior standing counsel.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

22.05.2017

Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior standing counsel for the Respondents produces a copy of the order dated 9th May, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35 (1), New Delhi in the case of Petitioner No. 2, Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Supreme Gold disposing of the application under the first proviso to Section 132 B (1) (i) of the Income Tax Act 1961. A copy of the said order has also been furnished to Mr. Tiku, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner.

It will be open to the Petitioners to amend the writ petition to challenge the aforementioned order.

List on 10th July, 2017.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments