PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16 vs. YASH PAL NARENDER KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/230/2016HC DelhiDLHC01109021201604 April 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and insufficient, especially considering the long period of over two and a half years. The Court noted that the department had ample notice and facilities for the change in filing procedures, and a dedicated cell should have monitored the appeal's progress.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 936 days. The reasons provided for the delay were the implementation of new practice directions for filing soft copies of paperbooks and a change in Standing Counsel for the Department.

What were the issues?

Whether the reasons provided by the Revenue for the inordinate delay in re-filing the appeal were sufficient to condone the delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 230/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 38. +

ITA 230/2016

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16 ..... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel.

versus

YASH PAL NARENDER KUMAR

..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

04.04.2016 CM No.12383/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 230/2016 1. There is an inordinate delay of 936 days in 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.

As regards this ground, 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

ITA 230/2016 Page 2 of 2

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 two and a half years.

4.

Learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out a second 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 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.

5.

The application CM No.12383/2016 for condonation of the delay of 936 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 04, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →