Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Khetri Trust

Delhi HC16 Mar 2016ITA/195/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses condonation of delay applications and the underlying income tax appeals. The court rejected the Revenue's excuses regarding practice directions and counsel changes, finding an 875-day delay unjustifiable and dismissing the cases on merits citing prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay dismissed; underlying appeals ITA 193/2016 & 195/2016 dismissed on merits.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs Khetri Trust — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA ITA

¶2

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶3

The applications are disposed of.

¶4

CM No.9652/2016 in ITA 193/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing

¶5

the appeal)

¶6

CM No.9657/2016 in ITA 195/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing

¶7

the appeal)

¶8

There is an inordinate delay in of 875 days in re-filing of the present appeals by the Revenue.

¶9

The Court finds that the standard excuses that the Revenue ,isputting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing is two-fold. The first is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. The second is about change in standing counsel for the Revenue.

¶10

The first ground is entirely unconvincing as sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. Further, the Registiy 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. The second excuse regarding change of standing counsel is also not justified considering that there is an entire panel of lawyers for the Revenue and its cell in the High Court is managed by a Deputy CIT whose work is overseen by an Assistant CIT.

¶11

ITANos.193& 195 of2016

¶12

Page 2 of3

¶13

None of the above factors could have entailed a delay of more than two years in re-filing the appeals.

¶14

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

¶15

ITA 193/2016 & ITA 195/2016

¶16

In view of the order dated 17^*^ July, 2014 in ITA No.162/2001 {Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Khetri Trust), these appeals are dismissed on merits as well.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

MARCH 16, 2016 MK

ITA.NOS.193& 195 of2016

¶21

Page 3 of 3

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Khetri Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Khetri Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitsubishi Corporation New Del Vs Director of Income Tax,Intn'L

M/S Religare Capital Markets Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Times Internet Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CENTRAL-1). Vs Late Shri Sudhir Sareen(through Legal Representatives)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs Khetri Trust

Pr. Comissioner of Income TEX-2 Vs Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd.