PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/324/2017HC DelhiDLHC01190705201728 April 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 Revenue's explanation for the inordinate delay in re-filing the appeal to be unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized the need for better internal tracking mechanisms within the Department to monitor pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, but there was a significant delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal after it was returned with defects. The Revenue attributed this delay to the change of Standing Counsel and lack of follow-up.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 324 of 2017

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 33. +

ITA 324/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing

Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate.

versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED

(FORMERLY SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATION

INDIAPRIVATE LIMITED)

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Ms. Vrinda

Tulshan and Mr. Manan Jain, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

28.04.2017

CM No. 16137/2017 (for exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 16135/2017 (for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal)

2.

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM No. 16136/2017 (for condonation of delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal)

3.

There is an inordinate delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal.

ITA No. 324 of 2017

Page 2 of 2

4.

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 1144 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.

5.

The application for condonation of the delay of 1144 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed.

6.

Accordingly, the appeal ITA 324 of 2017 is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 28, 2017 dn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →