Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi v. Amit Malhotra
High Court
26 Jul 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi v. Amit Malhotra
Date of order
26 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xi v. Amit Malhotra, 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
1. + ITA 396/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
AMIT MALHOTRA
..... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R% 26.07.2016
-CM No. 25307/2016 (for condonation of delay of 510 days in refiling the appeal)
1. There is an inordinate delay of 510 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 two-fold. The first is regarding the practice directions issued by the Court
pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters. The second is regarding the change of standing counsel.
3. As regards the first ground, sufficient advance notice had been given to
the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks.
Page 1 of 2
ITA No. 396 of 2016
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 one and a half years.
4. As regards the 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 one 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.
5. The application for condonation of the delay of 510 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
JULY 26, 2016/dn
ITA No. 396 of 2016
NAJMI WAZIRI, 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.