9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1310 - HC - Income TaxCondonation of delay - extraordinary delay of 665 days in re-filing - Held that - The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event, the delay of 655 days on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing these appeals. Transferring the control of the Trust - Held that - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT (A) has in the order dated 26th February 2010, common to both AYs, disagreed with the Assessing Officer ( AO ) and held that there is no evidence to show that there has been any siphoning off of funds and that by virtue of the agreement control of the Trust has been transferred to FHL. No substantial question of law.
Issues: Extraordinary delay in re-filing appeals, merits of the appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: 1. Delay in Re-filing Appeals: The judgment addresses the extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing the appeals. The explanation provided for the delay was related to the practice directions issued by the Court for e-filing appeals. However, the Court found this explanation unacceptable, emphasizing that the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and ample time was given to adapt to e-filing requirements. The Court also facilitated e-filing by providing scanning machines. Despite these measures, the Court refused to condone the delay, stating it was wholly unacceptable. 2. Merits of the Appeals: The appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were filed by the Revenue against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The ITAT's decision was influenced by a previous order regarding low tax effect in the case of the same Assessee for AY 2008-09. The crucial issue raised was the transfer of control of a Trust to Fortis Healthcare Limited through an operation and maintenance agreement, where the Trust agreed to pay management fees to FHL. The CIT (A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer, stating there was no evidence of funds siphoning and that control of the Trust had indeed shifted to FHL. 3. Court's Decision: The Court, based on the facts presented, declined to frame any legal questions as requested by the Revenue. However, it left the questions open for future consideration in a suitable case. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed due to the extraordinary delay in re-filing them and on merits, indicating that the Court found no reason to rule in favor of the Revenue based on the presented arguments and evidence. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Delhi High Court provides a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the Court's decision regarding the delay in re-filing appeals and the merits of the appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
