PR. COMMO=ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. IQOR INDIA SARVICES (P)LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/314/2017HC DelhiDLHC01173398201719 April 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the reasons provided for the delay insufficient to justify the extraordinary delay. The court was not convinced by the explanation offered by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order but sought condonation for an extraordinary delay of 505 days in re-filing. The reasons provided included increased court fees, digitization, and a change in standing counsel.

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 314 of 2017 Page 1 of 3

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 83 +

ITA 314/2017 & CM No. 14730/2017

PR. 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 Negi, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

19.04.2017

CM No. 14729/2017 (for exemption)

1.

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM No. 14730/2017

2.

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. 5934/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2007- 08.

ITA 314 of 2017 Page 2 of 3

3.

The 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 9th October 2014 within the prescribed period of limitation. However, due to the drastic increase in the court fees, the matters were placed under objections 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."

4.

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.

5.

None of the above reasons can justify the extraordinary delay of 505 days in re-filing the appeal. As far as e-filing is concerned, the Registry of this court conducted 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. As far as increase in court fee is concerned, the change came into force on 1st August, 2012 much before the filing of the present appeal. Even change in counsel cannot explain why there would be a delay of 505 days in curing defects and re-filing the appeal.

ITA 314 of 2017 Page 3 of 3

6.

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 No. 314 of 2017 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J APRIL 19, 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 →