This order dismisses an application for condonation of delay and the underlying appeal. The Court rejected grounds of budgetary constraints and court practice directions, finding the two-year delay excessive and unexplained. Both the application and appeal were dismissed in consequentials.
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.
$~
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Advocate.
versus
EXPRESS PROJECT PVT. LTD. .... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R % 10.02.2016
CM No. 4023/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 123 of 2016
ITA No. 123/2016 Page 1 of 2
of the appeal, the Court Fees Act applicable to Delhi stood amended. As regards the second ground, again sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registry of the Court had made appropriate arrangements for scanning services at the filing counters to facilitate the making of soft copies so that the inconvenience if any caused to the Advocates and the litigants is minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2016/ dn
ITA No. 123/2016 Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 834 days in re-filing the income tax appeal due to budgetary constraints or court practices is valid.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-IV
Express Project Pvt. Ltd.
S. Muralidhar
Vibhu Bakhru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
