Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate v. Eeshaan Automation Pvt. Ltd.through:none

$~46 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 177/2017 & CM Nos.8331-32/2017 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. Versus EESHAAN AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.Through:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%01.03.2017 ..... Respondent CM No.8331/2017 (for exemption) 1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed off. CM No.8332/2017 (for delay) 3.At the outset, the Court notices that this appeal is grossly time barredby 734 days; which is the time taken by the Revenue to re-file the appeal.The explanation for the delay is less then convincing; the Revenue states theheavy workload of the appellant, which it was unable to effectively manage,as well as the lack of manpower.The other reason stated is thereorganization of its panel counsels.Both do not constitute “sufficientcause” to enable the Court to condone the delay. 4.The applications is accordingly dismissed. ITA 177/2017 ITA No.177/2017 5.The question of law urged is identical to the one urged for theprevious year’s i.e. Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05, which was reassessed.The grounds for addition were that the assessee had not made materialdisclosures with regard to the inferred remittances.The Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reversed the findings like in the previouscase for AY 2005-06.The ITAT’s order for the previous year’s i.e. AY2004-05 was carried in appeal in ITA No.227/2017. This Court had by itsorder dated 10.01.2017 concluded that no substantial question of law arosefor consideration and had dismissed the appeal. 6.Following the said order, the present appeal too is dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. MARCH 01, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J. ITA 177/2017