The Delhi High Court dismissed the Income Tax Commissioner's appeal against an order quashing a reopening under Section 147 due to an 542-day unexplained delay and a lack of substantial question of law on merits regarding failure to disclose material facts.
The appeal was dismissed both due to inordinate delay and on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
2.
versus
M/S. DLF LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms Kavita Jha and Ms Mehak Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
CM No.3180/2016 (for condonation of delay of 542 days in re-filing the appeal) in ITA 112/2016
This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that
ITA 112/2016 Page 1 of 3
no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost one year and six months 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.
ITA 112/2016 Page 2 of 3
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 9, 2016 MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 542 days in re-filing an income tax appeal warrants condonation.
Whether there is failure by the assessee to disclose all material facts justifying reopening under Section 147.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV
M/S. DLF Ltd.
S. Muralidhar
Vibhu Bakhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
