THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S IFCA BOTTLING CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/127/2016HC DelhiDLHC01253391201412 February 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. It noted the existence of a dedicated cell to track appeals and dismissed the condonation application.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 950 days. The department attributed the delay to changes in Standing Counsel and lack of follow-up.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the condonation of a significant delay in re-filing an appeal by the Income Tax Department and the adequacy of the reasons provided for such delay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 127/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4. +

ITA 127/2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for

Mr. Rahul Chaudhry, Senior Standing counsel.

versus

M/S IFCA BOTTLING CO. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

12.02.2016

CM No. 4256 of 2016 (delay) and ITA No. 127 of 2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 950 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 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 possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost two and half years to elapse before the appeal could be re- filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the

ITA No. 127/2016 Page 2 of 2

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 application bearing CM No. 4256 of 2016 for condonation of the delay of 950 in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 12, 2016 mg

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →