Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Harsha Interiors Decoraters Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2016ITA/95/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the subsequent appeal due to an inordinate delay of 802 days. The Court rejected the respondent's excuses regarding budgetary constraints and new filing procedures as insufficient justifications for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed on ground of extraordinary delay of 802 days.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Harsha Interiors Decoraters Pvt… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

¶3

- ITA 95/2016

¶4

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

HARSHA INTERIORS DECORATORS PVT. LTD. .... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶8

O R D E R % 02.02.2016

¶9

CM No. 3017/2016 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) & ITA No. 95 of 2016

¶10

There is an inordinate delay of 802 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶11

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 two-fold. The first is regarding the budgetary constraints of the Department which delayed payment of the differential court fees as a result of the Court Fees Delhi Amendment Act, 2012 which came into force on 1^st August 2012. The second is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paper books in tax matters.

¶12

The first ground is entirely unconvincing. Much prior to the initial filing

¶13

ITA No. 95/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶14

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 paper books. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The application is dismissed.

¶17

The appeal is accordingly dismissed on ground of extraordinary delay of 802 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶18

S.MURALIDHAR, J

¶19

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶20

FEBRUARY 02, 2016/ dn

¶21

ITA No. 95/2016 Page 2 of 2

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Harsha Interiors Decoraters Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Harsha Interiors Decoraters Pvt. 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-Viii Vs Vandana Goyal

Commissioner of Income Tax -Viii Vs Vandana Goyal

Commissioner of Income Tax -Viii Vs Vandana Goyal

Siemens Limited Vs the Commissioner Deparment of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Siemens Limited Vs Commissioner of Department of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Siemens Limited Vs the Commissioner Department of Trade & Taxes & Anr.