Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-Iii v. M/S Surya Vinayaka Industries Ltd

$~34 & 35 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA No.469/2016 & CM No. 26630/2016+ITA No.806/2016 & CM No. 43229/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-III .....Appellant Versus M/S SURYA VINAYAKA INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate for Appellant inItem No.34. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Mr. Sanjay Kumar andMr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates forAppellant in Item No. 35. Mr. Shashwat Bajpai, Mr. Sharad Agarwaland Sumangla Saxena, Advocates forRespondent in Both Items. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%06.02.2017 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), which allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that theexercise of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the circumstances,was not warranted. At the outset, the Court notices that both appeals arehighly belated. ITA No.469 has been filed after 613 days; ITA No.806 hasbeen filed after 707 days. In both instances, the explanation for the delay isless then convincing; the Revenue states the heavy workload of appellant,which it unable to effectively manage as well as the lack of manpower. The other reason stated is the reorganization of its panel counsel. Both did notconstitute “sufficient cause” to enable the Court to condone the delay. Theapplications and appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. FEBRUARY 06, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.