COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -V V. M/S DLF BUILDING & SERVICES (P) LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS NACHIKETA REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.]

WTA/2/2016

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax as the petitioner and DLF Building & Services (P) Ltd. as the respondent. The primary legal issue was the condonation of a 901-day delay in re-filing an appeal related to tax matters. The court scrutinized the reasons provided for the delay, which were linked to the department's adjustment to new e-filing systems. The court found these reasons insufficient, noting that the department had ample notice and resources to adapt to the changes. Furthermore, the court dismissed the appeal on merits, referencing a prior case with the same assessee where the appeal was also dismissed under similar circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727912 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DILEEP SHIVPURI; SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; E-filing; Extraordinary delay; Extraordinary delay; Tax matters; Soft copies

Judgement Text

" WTA No. 2/2016 Page 1 of 3 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11. + WTA 2/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus DLF BUILDING & SERVICES (P) LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS NACHIKETA REAL ESTATES (P), LTD.] ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 29.04.2016 CM No. 14022/2016 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. WTA 2/2016 & CM No. 14023/2016 (for condonation of delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal) 3. The delay in re-filing the appeal, as calculated by the Registry, is 901 days. The reasons adduced for the delay is that in terms of the changed system of e-filing of the appeals, the Department had to make the necessary arrangements for complying with the new requirements. 4. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the department is putting WTA No. 2/2016 Page 2 of 3 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. 5. 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 minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than two years. 6. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals 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. 7. The application bearing CM No.14023/2016 for condonation of the delay of 901 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. 8. Even on the merits, the Court finds that for the same Assessee for the AY 2001-02 the appeal filed by the Department (WTA No. 4/2015) was dismissed on 30th November 2015 both on the grounds of extraordinary WTA No. 2/2016 Page 3 of 3 delay in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits. 9. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination, and the appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of extraordinary delay in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 29, 2016/dn "