COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I vs. M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/288/2017HC DelhiDLHC01113282201715 May 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the reasons provided for the delay unacceptable, particularly the extensive delay of over three years. The Court was not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 1182 days in re-filing. The appellant cited practice directions for e-filing and change of Standing Counsel as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should condone an inordinate delay of 1182 days in re-filing an appeal by the Income Tax Department.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 4 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

ITA 288/2017 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 +

ITA 288/2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates.

versus

BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Mr. Bhuvan,

Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

15.05.2017

CM APPL 14174/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL 14175/2017 (delay) & ITA 288/2017 2. There is an inordinate delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal.

3.

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 this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning

ITA 288/2017 Page 2 of 2

machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over three years on this ground is wholly unacceptable.

4.

The second is regarding 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 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 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

5.

Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal.

6.

The application bearing CM APPL No.14175 of 2017 for condonation of the delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. The appeal also stands dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 15, 2017 Rm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →