Case Law › High Court › Thepr. Commissionerof Incometax- Central...

Thepr. Commissionerof Incometax- Central-3 v. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd

High Court 18 Apr 2017 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

18 Apr 2017

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Thepr. Commissionerof Incometax- Central-3 v. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Consequently, the appeals are also 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+ITA 919/2016 + THEPR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX- CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through:Mr. RuchirBhatia,Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD......RespondentThrough; WITH + ITA 920/2016THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL-3 AppellantThrough:Mr. RuchirBhatia,Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTSPVT. LTD.Through: Respondent WITH + ITA 921/2016THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3Appellant Through:Mr. RuchirBhatia,Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.RespondentThrough; WITH ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919,920, 921/2016 Page1of4 Signature Not VerifiedDigitally SignedBy:AMULYA ( ; + ITA 915/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL -3Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.RespondentThrough: WITH + 916/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTSPVT. LTD.RespondentThrough: WITH + ITA 917/2016THE PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate versusSUNCITYPROJECTSPVT. LTD.RespondentThrough: WITH ITA 915, 916, 917, 918,919, 920, 921/2016 Page2of4 +ITA 918/2016 ' THEPR. COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX- CENTRAL-3Appellant Through:Mr. RuchirBhatia,Advocate versus SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.RespondentThrough: CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRIORDER%18.04.2017 CMNos.46543/2016.46545/2016.46547/2016.46536/2016,46537/2016.46539/2016.46541/2016&ITANos.919/2016,920/2016.921/2016.915/2016.916/2016.917/2016.918/20161. On 18^ January, 2017, the appeals were admitted by framingquestions of law. The Court also directed notice to be issued on theapplications for condonation of delay. 2. It is now seen that in para 3 of each of these applications whichseeks condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the appeals the onlyexplanation offered is as under: "3. That however, after due deliberations at various levels,the competent authority decided to file appeal against theorder of Tribunal dated 21.03.2016 before this Hon'ble HighCourt and requisite approval was granted on 30.09.2016." ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 3 of4 3. The above explanationis in fact no explanationat all. There havebeen numerousjudgmentsof the SupremeCourt as well as this Courtmandatingthat everyday's delaymustbe explainedby the Appellant.4. At this stage,Mr. RuchirBhatia,Advocatepraysthat the Appellantmay be given one more opportunityto explain each day's delay.However, this legal requirement has been known to the Departmentfor severaldecadesnow. The Court sees no reason to grant anyfurther indulgence, when applications seeking condonation of delayare filed in such a casual manner, despite knowing the requirement oflaw. 5. The Court is not satisfied with the explanationoffered and,therefore, declines to condone the delay of 86 days in the filing ofeach of these appeals. All the applications seeking condonation ofdelay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed. HAR, J APRIL 18, 2017Tp NAJMIWAZIRI,J ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 4 of4

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.