COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/233/2016HC DelhiDLHC01590235201505 April 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 excuse for the delay unacceptable, noting that sufficient notice and facilities were provided. The court held that the department's cell in the High Court should have monitored the filing of appeals.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal before the High Court, but there was an inordinate delay of 841 days in re-filing it. The department cited practice directions regarding soft copies of paperbooks as the reason for the delay.

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 could be condoned.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 233/2016

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 25 +

ITA 233/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing counsel.

versus

ORIENTAL BANKOF COMMERCE

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

05.04.2016

ITA No. 233/2016 & CM APPL No. 12610/2016 (for condonation of delay of 841 days in re-filing the appeal)

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 841 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 regarding 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. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than two

ITA No. 233/2016

Page 2 of 2

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.

4.

The application bearing CM No. 12610/2016 for the condonation of delay of 841 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 05, 2016 Rm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →