Commissioner Ofincome Tax-Iii v. Solaris Chemtech Industries Pvt. Ltd
High Court
28 Feb 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Ofincome Tax-Iii v. Solaris Chemtech Industries Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
28 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Ofincome Tax-Iii v. Solaris Chemtech Industries Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the above reasons, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 925/2016, CM APPL.46657/2016
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-III
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.
versus
SOLARIS CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
%
O R D E R28.02.2017
The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is highly belated - by 1366 days. There is hardly any explanation for the delay. The appeal was filed on 16.02.2013 but appears to have been kept objected to. The Income Tax Department does not seem to have any clue about the filing of the appeal or the objections raised by the registry. It refers to the re-organisation of its panel of counsel and cites the pendency of a large number of appeals marked as defective. The reasons can hardly be considered sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Even on the question of law, we are of the opinion that the ITA 925/2016 Page 1 of 2
cancellation of penalty in this case was justified. The error committed by the assessee which was sought to be rectified subsequently could not be construed as a deliberate omission on its part and the addition made in the circumstances of the case was unjustified.
For the above reasons, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
/vikas/
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
ITA 925/2016
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.