What did the High Court hold?

The Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing, noting the lack of follow-up and the existence of a dedicated cell to track appeals. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal before the High Court with an inordinate delay of 900 days in re-filing. The department cited change of Standing Counsel and failure of the previous counsel to inform about defects as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the inordinate delay of 900 days in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and excusable.

Commissioner Ofincome… vs Spn Milk Products Industries Pvt… | Delhi High Court 2016

ITA 242/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 27. +

ITA 242/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II

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

versus

SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

06.04.2016 CM No.12653/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No.12654/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 242/2016 2. There is an inordinate delay of 900 days in re-filing the appeal.

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

ITA 242/2016 Page 2 of 2

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 two and a half 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.

The application CM No.12654/2016 for condonation of the delay of 900 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 06, 2016 MK

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments