PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. IQOR INDIA SERVICES (P)LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/315/2017HC DelhiDLHC01194962201721 April 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court found the reasons provided for the delay to be unsatisfactory and insufficient to justify the extensive delay. The court was not convinced that no follow-up was done on the appeal's filing.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order, but there was an extraordinary delay of 505 days in re-filing it. The Revenue cited reasons such as increased court fees, digitization, and change of counsel for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the reasons provided by the Revenue for the inordinate delay in re-filing the appeal are sufficient to condone the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 315/2017

Page 1 of 3

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

ITA 315/2017

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV

..... Appellant Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel

versus

IQOR INDIA SERVICES (P)LTD.

..... Respondent Through Mr. Mayank Navi and Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

21.04.2017

CM No. 14748/2017 1. This application seeks the condonation of an extraordinary delay of 505 days in re-filing the appeal of the Revenue under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 directed against an order dated 27th April 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1581/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

One explanation for the delay is set out in para 2 of the application which reads as under: "That initially the appeal in the present case was filed on 09.10.2014 within prescribed period of limitation.' However, due to the drastic increase in the court fees, the matters were placed under objections

ITA 315/2017

Page 2 of 3

by the registry. It would be appreciated that each CIT charge was therefore left with thousands of appeals for which the requisite funds had to be received from the Central Government and thereafter allocated by the CBDT. The amounts were extremely substantial and were not part of the allocated budget for the year. This has resulted in the present delay in re-filing the appeal due to unavoidable circumstances."

3.

The other reasons given for the delay are the removal of objections on account of digitization (e-filing) of the case and the change in the panel of the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

4.

None of the above reasons can justify the extraordinary delay of 505 days in re-filing the appeal. As regards the first reason, the Court Fees Delhi Amendment Act, 2012 came into force on 1st August 2012 long before the appeal was filed for the first time. There was sufficient time for the Department to have arranged for the funds.

5.

As far as e-filing is concerned, the Registry of this court held orientation sessions to enable the lawyers familiarise themselves with the e-filing processes. Scanning facilities were provided at the filing counters to assist lawyers and litigants.

6.

Even change in counsel cannot explain why there would be a delay of 505 days in curing defects and re-filing the appeal. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than one year 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

ITA 315/2017

Page 3 of 3

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.

7.

The court is not convinced by the reasons given for the delay of 505 days in re-filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

ITA 315/2017 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 21, 2017 b

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →