THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/131/2016HC DelhiDLHC01057002201515 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 and unacceptable. It noted the lack of follow-up by the department and the supervision failure by the High Court cell.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 975 days in re-filing. The department's explanation for the delay was the change of Standing Counsel and lack of communication.

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 justifiable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 131/2016 Page 1 of 2

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

ITA 131/2016

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendar Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocate.

versus

MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED,

..... Respondent Through: Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

15.02.2016 CM No.4773/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 131/2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 975 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

ITA 131/2016 Page 2 of 2

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.

3.

The application bearing CM No.4773/2016 for condonation of the delay of 975 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 MK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →