COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X vs. SH. LALIT MOHAN GOEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/203/2016HC DelhiDLHC01094100201628 March 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 no one in the department followed up on the appeals. The court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department filed appeals with an inordinate delay of 830 days. The department cited the change of Standing Counsel and the earlier counsel's failure to inform about defects as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should condone an inordinate delay in re-filing appeals by the Income Tax Department based on the provided reasons.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I ; 0 $~l-3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 201/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus SH.LALIT MOHAN GOEL .....Respondent With + ITA 202/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus SH.LALIT MOHAN GOEL Respondent And + ITA 203/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus SH.LALIT MOHAN GOEL Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 28.03.2016 CM No. 11230 of 2016(exemption) in ITA No. 201 of 2016. CM No. 10806 of 2016(exemption) in ITA No. 203 of 2016. ITA Nos. 201, 202 &203/2016 Page 1 of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

I .i 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. CM No. 10804 of 2016 & ITA No. 201 of 2016 CM No. 10805 of 2016 & ITA No. 202 of 2016 CM No. 10807 of 2016 & ITA No. 203 of2016 3. There is an inordinate delay of 830 days in re-filing the appeals. 4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation ofdelay in re-filing the appeals 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 riot 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 more than two 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 ifany appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. 5. The applications for condonation ofthe delay of 830 days in re-filing the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. SMURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, I MARCH 28, 2016/mg ITA Nos. 201, 202 &203/2016 Page 2 of2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →