CIT V. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA

ITA/933/2011

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Income Tax Appeals (ITA 933/2011 & connected matters) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against Jagdish Prasad Gupta. The appeals were consolidated due to their similar nature and were heard together. The primary legal issues revolved around the delays in filing and re-filing review petitions, and the substantive grounds for reviewing the earlier judgment dated 18th August 2017. The court, after considering the applications and hearing arguments, dismissed all the review petitions both on procedural grounds (due to excessive delays) and on substantive grounds (no merit found to alter the previous judgment).

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720231 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHASWAT BAJPAI; SHAR AD AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK MANCHANDA; AMAR PANWAR; ADITYA KHOMPARIA
• Keywords: Delay in filing; Exemption; Income tax appeal; Review petition

Judgement Text

"ITA 933/2011 & connected matters. Page 1 of 5 $~1 to 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 933/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 934/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 935/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. ITA 933/2011 & connected matters. Page 2 of 5 versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 936/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 711/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 787/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr ITA 933/2011 & connected matters. Page 3 of 5 Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 1535/2010 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. + ITA 424/2016 PR. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Amar Panwar and Mr Aditya Khomparia, Advocates. versus JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Dr Shaswat Bajpai and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ITA 933/2011 & connected matters. Page 4 of 5 O R D E R % 28.09.2018 CM 40089/2018 (exemption) in ITA 933/2011 CM 40083/2018 (exemption) in ITA 934/2011 CM 40078/2018 (exemption) in ITA 935/2011 CM 40075/2018 (exemption) in ITA 936/2011 CM 40068/2018 (exemption) in ITA 711/2011 CM 40071/2018 (exemption) in ITA 787/2011 CM 40390/2018 (exemption) in ITA 1535/2010 CM 40387/2018 (exemption) in ITA 424/2016 1.Allowed, subject all just exceptions. CM 40087/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition) and CM 40088/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 933/2011. CM 40081/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition) and CM 40082/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 934/2011. CM 40076/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition ) and CM 40077/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 935/2011. CM 40073/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition) and CM 40074/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 936/2011. CM 40066/2018 (delay of 156 days in filing the Review Petition ) and CM 40067/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 711/2011. CM 40069/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition ) and CM 40070/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition ) in ITA 787/2011. CM 40388/2018 (delay of 150 days in filing the Review Petition ) and CM 40389/2018 (delay of 197 days in re-filing the Review Petition )in ITA 1535/2010. CM 40385/2018 (delay of 157 days in filing the Review Petition) and CM 40386/2018 (delay of 162 days in re-filing the Review Petition )in ITA 424/2016 2. The Court has perused the applications in each of the appeals and finds ITA 933/2011 & connected matters. Page 5 of 5 that no satisfactory explanation has been given to condone to the delays, both in filing and re-filing of the review petitions, which are all in excess of 150 days. The applications are accordingly dismissed. Review Petition 371/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 933/2011. Review Petition 370/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 934/2011. Review Petition 369/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 935/2011. Review Petition 368/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 936/2011. Review Petition 366/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 711/2011. Review Petition 367/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 787/2011. Review Petition 375/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 1535/2010. Review Petition 374/2018 (for review of the judgment dated 18.08.2017) in ITA 424/2016 3. Mr. Manchanda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, has also been heard on the merits of the review petitions. 4. The Court finds no ground for review of the judgment dated 18th August 2017. All the review petitions are accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M.SINGH, J . SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 /mw "