COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. POORVA SANSKRITI KENDRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/186/2016HC DelhiDLHC01081904201611 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 reasons for the delay unacceptable, stating that the department should have followed up on its appeals. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi, but there was an inordinate delay of 917 days in re-filing the appeal. The department cited practice directions regarding soft copies and change of Standing Counsel as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the inordinate delay of 917 days in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department was sufficiently explained and justifiable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 186/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12. +

ITA 186/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS).... Appellant

Through: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate.

versus

POORVA SANSKRITI KENDRA ..... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

11.03.2016

CM No. 8969/2016 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

CM No. 8970/2016 (for condonation of delay of 917 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 186/2016

3.

There is an inordinate delay of 917 days in re-filing the appeal.

4.

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 two-fold. The first is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. The second is regarding the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and

ITA No. 186/2016 Page 2 of 2

the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect.

5.

As regards the first 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 so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised.

6.

As regards the second ground, 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 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.

7.

The application bearing CM No. 8970/2016 for condonation of the delay of 917 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 11, 2016/dn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →