Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. I.c...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. I.c.s Hotels Pvt Ltd

High Court 15 Feb 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. I.c.s Hotels Pvt Ltd
Date of order
15 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. I.c.s Hotels Pvt 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 4.+ ITA 133/2016 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocate. Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocate. versus I.C.S HOTELS PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ravi Pratap, Advocates. Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R% 15.02.2016 -CM No.4776/2016 (for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) & ITA ITA 133/2016 1. There is an inordinate delay of 785 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 the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that ITA 133/2016 Page 1 of 2 no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost two 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. 3. The application bearing CM No.4776/2016for condonation of the delay of 785 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J ITA 133/2016 Page 2 of 2
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan