The High Court of Delhi condoned neither the extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal nor the department's reliance on change of counsel. The application for condonation was dismissed.
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-VIII ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel withMr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel, Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
SMT. SHIRIN KAMALJIT SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 01.02.2016
CM No. 974 of 2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA 59 of 2016
ITA No. 59 of 2016 Page 1 of 2
period of almost two and a half years to elapse before the appeal could be refiled. 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. In any event, the delay of almost two and a half years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal.
extraordinary delay of 875 days in re-filing the appeal.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2016 mg
ITA No. 59 of 2016 Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the inordinate delay of 875 days in re-filing the income tax appeal.
Whether the explanation of change of Standing Counsel constitutes sufficient grounds for condoning delay.
Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII
Smt. Shirin Kamaljitsingh
S. Muralidhar
Vibhu Bakhru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
