The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd
High Court
10 Mar 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd
Date of order
10 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sbec Bioenergy Ltd, 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.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
1.
+
ITA 48/2016
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ..... Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel.
versus
SBEC BIOENERGY LTD
..... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
% 10.03.2016
-CM No.962/2016 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) & ITA 48/2016
1. There is an inordinate delay of 1531 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 regarding the practice directions issued by the Court pertaining to filing of soft copies of the paperbooks in tax matters.
3. As regards this ground, 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
ITA 48/2016 Page 1 of 2
minimised. In any event the change could not have entailed a delay of more than four years.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant pointed out a second reason. 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 four 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. In any event, the delay of over four years on these grounds is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 1531 days in re-filing the appeal.
6. The application bearing CM No. 962/2016 for condonation of the delay of 1531 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
MARCH 10, 2016
MK
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
ITA 48/2016 Page 2 of 2
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.