THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. FORGING LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/89/2016HC DelhiDLHC01675996201510 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 was held that the department should have a system to track appeals and not allow such a significant delay.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 1210 days in re-filing. The department cited change of Standing Counsel and failure of the earlier counsel to inform about defects as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Income Tax Department is sufficiently explained and justifiable for condonation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 89/2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 2. +

ITA 89/2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Advocate.

versus

FORGING LTD.

.... Respondent

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

10.02.2016

CM No. 2807/2016 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of. CM No. 2808/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 89 of 2016

3.

There is an inordinate delay of 1210 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 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

ITA No. 89/2016 Page 2 of 2

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.

5.

The application CM No. 2808 of 2016 is dismissed.

6.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 10, 2016/dn

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →