Dismissed

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Delhi(South) v. Dcit, Circle 76(1)

Delhi HC12 Aug 2024ITA/97/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed condonation of delay applications for multiple income tax appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The court rejected the explanation of counsel illness caused by COVID-19 as inadequate to account for the 1,427-day gap, finding only the pandemic period was legitimately explained. Consequence was dismissal of delay motions.

What did the court decide?

Cmondation of delay applications for all appeals stands dismissed.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Delhi(South)… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~66 to 75

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ITA 97/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI(SOUTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush Swami and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocates. versus

¶4

DCIT, CIRCLE 76(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates. 67 + ITA 98/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI(SOUTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush Swami and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocates. versus DCIT, CIRCLE 76(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates. 68

¶5

ITA 99/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (SOUTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush Swami and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:46:55

¶8

DCIT, CIRCLE 76(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates. 69 + ITA 100/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (SOUTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush Swami and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocates. versus DCIT, CIRCLE 76(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates. 70 + ITA 101/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (SOUTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vikramajit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Rony O John, Mr. Piyush Swami and Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocates. versus DCIT, CIRCLE 76(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates. 71

¶9

ITA 119/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI NORTH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Anshul Saxena and Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocates.

¶10

versus

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:46:55

¶13

ACIT CIRCLE 74(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶14

¶15

ITA 120/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Anshul Saxena and Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocates.

¶16

versus

¶17

ACIT CIRCLE 74(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶18

¶19

ITA 121/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Anshul Saxena and Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocates.

¶20

versus

¶21

ACIT CIRCLE 74(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶22

¶23

ITA 122/2021

¶24

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:46:55

¶27

Anshul Saxena and Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocates.

¶28

versus

¶29

ACIT CIRCLE 74(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶30

¶31

ITA 124/2021 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth, SC with Mr. Anshul Saxena and Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocates.

¶32

versus

¶33

ACIT CIRCLE 74(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

% 12.08.2024 CM APPLs. 12132/2021, 12134/2021 (for delay) in ITA 97/2021 CM APPLs. 12135/2021, 12137/2021 (for delay) in ITA 98/2021 CM APPLs. 12138/2021, 12140/2021 (for delay) in ITA 99/2021 CM APPLs. 12141/2021, 12143/2021 (for delay) in ITA 100/2021 CM APPLs. 12144/2021, 12146/2021 (for delay) in ITA 101/2021 CM APPLs. 14273/2021, 14275/2021 (for delay) in ITA 119/2021 CM APPLs. 14402/2021, 14404/2021 (for delay) in ITA 120/2021 CM APPLs. 14412/2021, 14414/2021 (for delay) in ITA 121/2021 CM APPLs. 14421/2021, 14423/2021 (for delay) in ITA 122/2021 CM APPLs. 14478/2021, 14480/2021 (for delay) in ITA 124/2021

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:46:55

¶39

These appeals seek to question the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal⁴ dated 03 August 2016. However, and as is manifest from the affidavit which has been filed in support of the applications seeking condonation of delay, all that was asserted was that the counsel entrusted with the filing and preparation of these appeals had been infected with COVID. There is an apparent and evident failure to explain the delay between 2016 and till such time that the pandemic came down.

¶40

Although a subsequent affidavit in support of the prayer for condonation of delay has been moved along with CM APPL. 53208/2022, we note that the same also miserably and abjectly fails to explain the inordinate delay of 1427 days. All that the affidavit refers to is the exchange of correspondence between the counsel engaged and certain officers of the appellant-organisation.

¶41

We consequently find no ground to condone the delay. These applications shall thus stand dismissed.

¶42

ITA 97/2021 & CM APPL. 53208/2022 (additional documents) ITA 98/2021 & CM APPL. 53212/2022 (additional documents) ITA 99/2021 & CM APPL. 53210/2022 (additional documents) ITA 100/2021 & CM APPL. 53214/2022 (additional documents) ITA 101/2021 & CM APPL. 53209/2022 (additional documents) ITA 119/2021 & CM APPLs. 14272/2021 (stay), 35742/2023 (additional documents) ITA 120/2021 & CM APPLs. 14401/2021 (stay), ITA 121/2021 & CM APPL. 14411/2021 (Stay), CM APPL. 35743/2023 (Addl. Document) ITA 122/2021 & CM APPL. 14420/2021 (stay) ITA 124/2021 & CM APPLs. 14477/2021 (stay)

¶43

In light of our order on the main applications seeking condonation of delay, these applications shall stand disposed of.

¶44

4 Tribunal

¶45

¶46

In light of the delay condonation applications having been dismissed, these appeals shall stand consigned to the record.

¶47

The questions of law which were otherwise sought to be canvassed in this set of appeals are kept open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.

¶48

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶49

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶50

AUGUST 12, 2024/ vp

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/08/2024 at 11:46:55

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Delhi(South) v. Dcit, Circle 76(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Delhi(South) v. Dcit, Circle 76(1)

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

Genpact Luxembourg S.A.R.L. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi and Anr.

Dynamic Drilling and Services Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 Vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Neelkanth Steel and Alloys Vs Asstt. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 49(1), & Ors.

Mis Kuber Securities Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Ab Medicos Private Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) & Anr.