COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/421/2016HC DelhiDLHC01148746201622 July 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding the reasons provided by the department unconvincing. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 588 days in re-filing. The department cited practice directions for soft copy filing and change of Standing Counsel as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and justifiable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 421/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri and Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocates.

versus

M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Ms. Mehvish Khan and Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

22.07.2016 CM No. 25596/2016 (Exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 25597/2016 (for condonation of delay of 588 days in re- filing the appeal) & ITA 421/2016 2. There is an inordinate delay of 588 days in re-filing the appeal.

3.

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.

4.

Sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, ITA 421/2016

Page 1 of 2

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 change could not have entailed a delay of more than one year and six months.

5.

Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out another reason. The change of Standing counsel for the Department. This again, does not impress the Court. 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 and six months 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.

6.

The application for condonation of the delay of 588 days in re- filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JULY 22, 2016/kk

ITA 421/2016

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →