What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.

The Revenue filed appeals against the ITAT's order with a delay of 86 days. The applications for condonation of delay provided a vague explanation, stating that the competent authority decided to file the appeal after deliberations.

What were the issues?

Whether the explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeals was satisfactory and in compliance with legal requirements.

PCIT vs Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd | Delhi High Court 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 919/2016 + THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through; WITH + ITA 920/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: WITH + ITA 921/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through; WITH ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 1of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

( ; + ITA 915/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: WITH + 916/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: WITH + ITA 917/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: WITH ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 2of4

+ ITA 918/2016 ' THEPR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 18.04.2017 CM Nos. 46543/2016. 46545/2016. 46547/2016. 46536/2016, 46537/2016. 46539/2016. 46541/2016 & ITA Nos. 919/2016, 920/2016.921/2016.915/2016.916/2016.917/2016.918/2016 1. On 18^ January, 2017, the appeals were admitted by framing questions of law. The Court also directed notice to be issued on the applications for condonation of delay. 2. It is now seen that in para 3 of each of these applications which seeks condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the appeals the only explanation offered is as under: "3. That however, after due deliberations at various levels, the competent authority decided to file appeal against the order of Tribunal dated 21.03.2016 before this Hon'ble High Court and requisite approval was granted on 30.09.2016." ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 3 of4

The above explanation is in fact no explanation at all. There have been numerous judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court mandating that every day's delay mustbe explained by the Appellant. 4. At this stage, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate prays that the Appellant may be given one more opportunity to explain each day's delay. However, this legal requirement has been known to the Department for several decades now. The Court sees no reason to grant any further indulgence, when applications seeking condonation of delay are filed in such a casual manner, despite knowing the requirement of law. 5. The Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered and, therefore, declines to condone the delay of 86 days in the filing of each of these appeals. All the applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed. HAR, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J APRIL 18, 2017 Tp ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 4 of4

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3 vs. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments