Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Bhus...

Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Bhushan Steel Limited

High Court 15 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Bhushan Steel Limited
Date of order
15 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Bhushan Steel Limited, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal also stands dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 4 + ITA 288/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates. versus BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Mr. Bhuvan, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 15.05.2017 CM APPL 14174/2017 (for exemption) 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL 14175/2017 (delay) & ITA 288/2017 2. There is an inordinate delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal. 3. 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 practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning ITA 288/2017 Page 1 of 2 machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of over three years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. 4. The second is regarding change of Standing counsel for the Department. This again, does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than three 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 5. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal. 6. The application bearing CM APPL No.14175 of 2017 for condonation of the delay of 1182 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. The appeal also stands dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 15, 2017 Rm CHANDER SHEKHAR, J ITA 288/2017 Page 2 of 2
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan