COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. M/S PRERNA AUTO PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/293/2016HC DelhiDLHC01099472201606 May 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing, stating that it was improbable no one followed up for over a year and a half. The Court emphasized the responsibility of the department's High Court cell to track appeal filings.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax-V, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 549 days in re-filing. The department's explanation for the delay was the change of Standing Counsel and the failure of the previous counsel to inform about defects in the filing.

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 excusable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 293/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. +

ITA 293/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

M/S PRERNA AUTO PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

06.05.2016 CM No.16330/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 293/2016 1. There is an inordinate delay of 549 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 change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost one and half years to elapse before the appeal could be re- filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the

ITA 293/2016 Page 2 of 2

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.

3.

The application bearing CM No.16330/2016 for condonation of the delay of 549 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 06, 2016 pkv

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →