Today i saw the judgment of full bench of Allahbad High Court in which it has been held that High Court has no power to condone the delay under section 260A. However, i would like to inform you people that the Learned Judges of Delhi High Court has held that the high court has full power to condone the delay inspite of Hongo and Grasim. I am sorry that i could not be able to post that judgment however i will post the same as soon as i get that judgment.
Dear Bret Lee,
There is a judgement of the Delhi High Court in Kandhari Radio where they have Followed Hongo. Copy is attached. If you have a judgement where they have NOT followed Hongo and Grasim it will be sensational. Pl confirm if that is so.
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:M37uHBtTl2QJ:delhicourts.nic.in/Apr09/Commissioner%2520of%2520Central%2520Excise%2520Vs.%2520Kandhari%2520Radio.pdf+delhi+high+court+hongo&hl=en&sig=AFQjCNHxABf3_dEBXw0FZIe31Q8m_QMjQw
Ashutosh.
Quote from: brett_lee38 on October 01, 2009, 09:50:56 AM
Today i saw the judgment of full bench of Allahbad High Court in which it has been held that High Court has no power to condone the delay under section 260A. However, i would like to inform you people that the Learned Judges of Delhi High Court has held that the high court has full power to condone the delay inspite of Hongo and Grasim. I am sorry that i could not be able to post that judgment however i will post the same as soon as i get that judgment.
I was present in court when they have distinguish Hongo and Kandahrai Radio but i could not get the order till today it is awaited. However i am making a statement at bar that Delhi high Court has condoned delay inspite of Hongo and Grasim
I will mail the same
In the below mentioned case the High Court has condoned the delay when the High Court has heard the below mentioned matter with other matters on 04-09-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
18.08.2009
#20
Present: Mr. P.C.Yadav and Mr. N.P.Sahni, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
CM No.13034/2008 and ITA No.1144/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR DANG
Since the question as to whether this court has the power to condone the
delay in filing the appeal arises in this case, we post the matter to 4th
September, 2009 when similar question is coming up for consideration in other
appeals.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
August 18, 2009
mm
Fortunately i got the judgment of condonation of delay I am giving the judgment of Delhi High Court condoning 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:
?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
Ne/pmc
# 13