COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/423/2016HC DelhiDLHC01148617201622 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 found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and insufficient. The Court stated that the departmental cell in the High Court should have tracked the filing of appeals and prevented such a significant delay.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 510 days. The reasons provided for the delay included the transition to filing soft copies of paperbooks and a change in the Department's Standing Counsel.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 423/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7

..... 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. 25600/2016 (for condonation of delay of 510 days in re- filing the appeal) & ITA 423/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 510 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 ITA 423/2016

Page 1 of 2

the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than one year and four months.

4.

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 four 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.

5.

The application for condonation of the delay of 510 days in re- filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JULY 22, 2016 Kk

ITA 423/2016

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →