Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Neeraj Singal
High Court
16 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Neeraj Singal
Date of order
16 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (C)-I v. Neeraj Singal, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: ITA 290/2017 7.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 290/2017
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
versus
NEERAJ SINGAL
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha & Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R% 16.05.2017
CM No.14177/2014
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No.14178/2017
2. There is an inordinate delay of 548 days in re-filing the appeal.
3. The excuse offered is that the appeal was filed by earlier Senior standing counsel who is not anymore on the panel of the department. The fact of defects lying was only noticed recently by the department, after which efforts were made to locate the appeal paper book, and re-filing was done. Further, it is urged that filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters as per the practice directions issued by the court is a much more cumbersome and time consuming process.
4. It is not possible to accept that no one followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of more than 1 ½ 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. As regards the issue of filing of soft copies, sufficient advance notice had been given to the litigants and Advocates about the filing of soft copies of the paperbooks. 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 1½ years.
6. The application is dismissed.
ITA 290/2017
7.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 16, 2017 tp
CHANDER SHEKHAR, 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.