DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXAMPTION) vs. INDIAN YOUTH CENTRE TRUST.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/573/2016HC DelhiDLHC01172579201605 August 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court found the excuse for the delay unacceptable, noting that sufficient notice and facilities were provided. The Court held that the department should have followed up on the filing and dismissed the condonation application.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Director of Income Tax (Exemption), filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 856 days in re-filing. The delay was attributed to practice directions regarding soft copy filing of paperbooks.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 573/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 573/2016

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate.

versus

INDIAN YOUTH CENTRE TRUST

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

05.08.2016

CM No. 28080/2016 (for condonation of delay of 851 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 573/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 856 days in re-filing the appeal.

2.

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 practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.

3.

Sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the

ITA 573/2016 Page 2 of 2

change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years.

4.

It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than two 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.

The application bearing CM No. 28080/2016 for condonation of the delay of 856 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J AUGUST 05, 2016 kk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →