Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Saranjeet Singh Khosla
High Court
06 Apr 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Saranjeet Singh Khosla
Date of order
06 Apr 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Saranjeet Singh Khosla, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is 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
23.+ ITA 238/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing counsel with Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Junior Standing counsel and Mr Aamir Aziz, Advocate.
versus
SHRI SARANJEET SINGH KHOSLA
..... Respondent
CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R% 06.04.2016
-CM No.12620/2016 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) & ITA 238/2016
1. There is an inordinate delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. 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 the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than two and a half 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.
3. The application CM No.12620/2016 for condonation of the delay of 950 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
APRIL 06, 2016 MK
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
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.