COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII vs. SMT. SHIRIN KAMALJIT SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/59/2016HC DelhiDLHC01568258201501 February 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The court noted the lack of follow-up by the Department and the supervision of a Deputy CIT.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) appeal was re-filed with an inordinate delay of 875 days. The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, cited change of Standing Counsel and failure to inform about defects as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned by the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 59 of 2016 Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3. +

ITA 59/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing

Counsel withMr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior

Standing counsel, Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate

versus

SMT. SHIRIN KAMALJIT SINGH

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

01.02.2016

CM No. 974 of 2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 59 of 2016

1.

There is an inordinate delay of 875 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

ITA No. 59 of 2016 Page 2 of 2

period of almost 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. In any event, the delay of almost two and a half years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal.

3.

The application is dismissed.

4.

Consequently, the appeal is accordingly dismissed on grounds of extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 01, 2016 mg

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →