Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Airport Authority of India

Delhi HC1 Mar 2016ITA/164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for condonation of a 1322-day delay in re-filing an income-tax appeal. The court held that practice directions on soft copies could not justify such inordinate delay and that the department must track pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay was dismissed; the income tax appeal was dismissed.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Airport Authority of India — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

ITA 164/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel.

¶5

versus

¶6

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶8

O R D E R % 01.03.2016

¶9

CM No.6936/2016

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

CM No.6935/2016 (for condonation of delay of 1322 days in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 164/2016

¶13

There is an inordinate delay of 1322 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶14

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 regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.

¶15

ITA 164/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶16

As regards this ground, 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 three and a half years.

¶17

It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three 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.

¶18

The application bearing CM No.6935/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1322 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶19

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

MARCH 01, 2016 MK

¶22

ITA 164/2016 Page 2 of 2

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Airport Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Airport Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-03 Vs M/S. Dbh International P. Limited

Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central CIRCLE-17 & Anr.

Cals Refineries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX,CIRCLE-5(2)

Anz Grindlays Bank Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Principal Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-08, Vs M/S Shruti Fastners Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-7 Vs Raj Krishna Buildstate Pvt. Ltd.