Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2016ITA/48/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal for condonation of 1531-day delay in re-filing an appeal. The Court rejected excuses citing practice directions on soft copies or change of counsel. The appeal for condonation and the underlying appeal were dismissed due to extraordinary delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; under appeal dismissed.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs Sbec Bioenergy Ltd. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. + ITA 48/2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel.

¶3

versus

¶4

SBEC BIOENERGY LTD ..... Respondent

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶6

O R D E R % 10.03.2016

¶7

CM No.962/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 48/2016

¶8

There is an inordinate delay of 1531 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

ITA 48/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶12

minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than four years.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out a second reason. The change of Standing counsel for the Department. This again, does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than four 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.

¶14

In any event, the delay of over four years on these grounds is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1531 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶15

The application bearing CM No. 962/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1531 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶16

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶17

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶18

MARCH 10, 2016 MK

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Lovely Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-09, Vs M/S World Window Impex India (P) Ltd.

Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Harjeev Aggarwal

L S Cable & System Ltd. Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax & Ors.

M/S Delhi Metal Stores Vs Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal &