What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, stating that the department should have a system to track appeals. The court also noted that the e-filing practice directions were implemented with sufficient notice and support.

The Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal before the High Court, but there was an inordinate delay of 1156 days in re-filing it. The department cited change of Standing Counsel and new e-filing practice directions as reasons 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 should be condoned.

CIT vs Su-Kam Power System Ltd | Delhi High Court 2016

ITA 130/2016 Page 1 of 3

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. +

ITA 130/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through: : Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sunior Standing Counsel for Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel

versus

SU-KAM POWER SYSTEM LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

15.02.2016 CM No.4772/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No.130/2016

There is an inordinate delay of 1156 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 twofold. The first 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 not impress the Court. It is not

ITA 130/2016 Page 2 of 3

possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three 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. 3. The second ground is regarding the practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As regards this ground, as has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the Bar and after 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. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than three years.

ITA 130/2016 Page 3 of 3

The application bearing CM No.4772/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1156 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 MK

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SU-KAM POWER SYSTEM LTD.,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments