Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Meera Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):
CM No.37822/2023 in ITA No. 403/2023
CM No.37840/2023 in ITA No. 405/2023
CM No.37880/2023 in ITA No. 406/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM No. 37823/2023 in ITA No. 403/2023
CM No.37841/2023 in ITA No. 405/2023
CM No.37849/2023 in ITA No. 406/2023
2. These are applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 89 days in filing the above-captioned appeals.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned.
4. The applications are disposed of.
ITA No. 403/2023, ITA No. 405/2023 and ITA No. 406/2023
5. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 (ITA No. 403/2023), AY 2011-12 (ITA 405/2023) & AY 2009-10 (ITA 406/2023).
6. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, says that as per the findings confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] via a common judgment dated 12.10.2022, no incriminating material was found vis-a-vis in these AYs.
7. It is also not disputed that these AYs concern completed assessments.
8. Thus, eve
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of incriminating material in the mentioned Assessment Years and the coverage of the issue by the judgment of the coordinate bench of the Court and t....
The court has the discretion to allow condonation of delay in re-filing appeals and may grant liberty to file a writ petition based on previous judgments.
The court has the discretion to condone delay and may dispose of appeals with a caveat for further steps against the respondent/assessee in case of any deletion of substantial additions.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
The court's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
The incriminating material found during the search must concern the assessment year in issue for the proceedings to be valid.
The presence of incriminating material and the applicability of previous judgments are crucial in determining the admissibility of an appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
