Condonation of Delay By High Court

[brett_lee38]

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.

[ashutosh majumdar]

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.

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.

[brett_lee38]

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

[brett_lee38]

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

[brett_lee38]

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