Condonation of Delay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

23.09.2009
Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sukumuran, Advocate and Mr. Anand Sukumar, Advocate for the respondent.

C.M. No.16272/2008 in I.T.A. No.1365/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MONITOR INDIA LTD.

There is delay of 180 days in filing the present appeal. It is stated in this application that initially order was received in Delhi but since the jurisdiction was transferred to Mumbai, this order was sent to Mumbai and it was decided to file the appeal there. However, the Senior Standing Counsel in Mumbai opined that appropriate jurisdiction vests with Delhi High Court and not Bombay High Court. The matter was accordingly sent back to Delhi and because of this reason delay occurred.

Learned counsel for the respondent though does not dispute that the aforesaid cause furnished by the appellant would constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay , his submission however, is that this Court has no power to condone the delay in appeals filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. However, in I.T.A. No.932/2008 vide order dated 4.9.2008 in Ravinder Nath Jain Vs. C.I.T., it has been decided by this Court that the High Court has power to condone the delay. Therefore, we do not agree with this objection of learned counsel for the respondent. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM is disposed of. C.M. No.16273/2008 in I.T.A. No.1365/2008
For the reasons stated in this application, delay in refilling the appeal is condoned.
CM is disposed of. I.T.A. No.1365/2008
Admit.
The following substantial question of law arises for determination:

READ  Rape case Quashed - Failed engagement

Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) could not have been applied by the Assessing Officer to disallow the sum of Rs.55.40 lacs claimed by the assessee under the head ?fees for deputations of foreign professionals? as the provisions of Section 195(1) were not applicable to the present case??

Papers book be filed within three months.

A.K.SIKRI, J
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J

September 23, 2009

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *