Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Indian Evangelical Team - Respondent
ITA 713 of 2023 & CM APPL. 63257 of 2023
Decided On : 07-12-2023
Condonation of Delay - Appeal - The court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal and proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits. The appeal concerned the Assessment Year 2014-15 and was filed by the appellant/revenue to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the court found that the questions raised in the appeal were identical to those raised in previous appeals that had been closed or dismissed by coordinate benches of the court. Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was closed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/revenue sought condonation of delay of 457 days in re-filing the appeal. The appeal concerned Assessment Year 2014-15 and aimed to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal and proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits. However, it found that the questions raised in the appeal were identical to those raised in previous appeals that had been closed or dismissed by coordinate benches of the court. As a result, the court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and closed the appeal.
Issues: Condonation of delay, Identical questions raised in previous appeals, Substantial question of law
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal and proceed with the hearing on merits was influenced by the finding that the questions raised in the appeal were identical to those raised in previous appeals that had been closed or dismissed by coordinate benches of the court. This led the court to conclude that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Final Decision: The court closed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No. 63257/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 457 days in re-filing the appeal]
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay, in re-filing the appeal, on behalf of the appellant/revenue.
1.1. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of four hundred and fifty-seven (457) days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Since we are taking up the appeal for hearing on merits, the delay in re-filing is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 713/2023
4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "Tribunal"].
6. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, fairly informs us that the questions proposed in the instant appeal are identical to the questions that were raised by the appellant/revenue in ITA Nos. 353/2023, 360/2023, and 185/2022 and 169/2003.
7. Insofar as ITA No. 353/2023 and ITA No. 360/2023 are concerned, the said appeals were closed via a decision dated 10.07.2023, passed by a coordinate bench of this court.
8. Likewise, ITA No. 169/2003 was dismissed by another coordinate bench of this court, via an order dated 29.10.2015.
9. ITA No. 185/2022 suffered a similar fate. The decision in the said ITA was rendered on 08.07.2022 by yet another coordinate bench, whereby, it was held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, by the court.
10. Given this position, the instant appeal is closed as, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
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 absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
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 court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
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 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 the specific judgments covering the issue and the absence of substantial questions of law for consideration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year and to file appeals based on the tax effect in the relevant assess....
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
