Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate v. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. .....

Delhi High Court · 18 Apr 2017 · 2017:DHC:8726-DB
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI; 18.04.2017 CM Nos. 46543/2016. 46545/2016. 46547/2016. 46536/2016, 46537/2016. 46539/2016. 46541/2016 & ITA Nos. 919/2016, 920/2016.921/2016.915/2016.916/2016.917/2016.918/2016
2017:DHC:8726-DB
tax appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the income tax appeals due to the appellant's failure to adequately explain an 86-day delay in filing, reaffirming the strict requirement to justify each day's delay for condonation.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 919/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL -3
Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate
VERSUS
SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through;
WITH
ITA 920/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3
Appellant
VERSUS
SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent
Through:
WITH
ITA 921/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3
Appellant
VERSUS
Through;
WITH
ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 1of4
2017:DHC:8726-DB ( ;
ITA 915/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL -3
Appellant
VERSUS
Through:
WITH
916/2016 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3 ..... Appellant
VERSUS
Through:
WITH
ITA 917/2016
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3
Appellant
VERSUS
Through:
WITH
ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 2of4
ITA 918/2016 '
THEPR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-3 Appellant
VERSUS
Through:
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
18.04.2017 CM Nos. 46543/2016. 46545/2016. 46547/2016. 46536/2016, 46537/2016. 46539/2016. 46541/2016 & ITA Nos. 919/2016, 920/2016.921/2016.915/2016.916/2016.917/2016.918/2016
ORDER

1. On 18^ January, 2017, the appeals were admitted by framing questions of law. The Court also directed notice to be issued on the applications for condonation of delay.

2. It is now seen that in para 3 of each of these applications which seeks condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the appeals the only explanation offered is as under: "3. That however, after due deliberations at various levels, the competent authority decided to file appeal against the order of Tribunal dated 21.03.2016 before this Hon'ble High Court and requisite approval was granted on 30.09.2016." ITA 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921/2016 Page 3 of[4]

3. The above explanation is in fact no explanation at all. There have been numerous judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court mandating that every day's delay mustbe explained by the Appellant.

4. At this stage, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate prays that the Appellant may be given one more opportunity to explain each day's delay. However, this legal requirement has been known to the Department for several decades now. The Court sees no reason to grant any further indulgence, when applications seeking condonation of delay are filed in such a casual manner, despite knowing the requirement of law.

5. The Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered and, therefore, declines to condone the delay of 86 days in the filing of each of these appeals. All the applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed. HAR, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J APRIL 18, 2017 Tp