SC reprimands Income Tax Department for filing SLPs with considerable delays

Supreme Court reprimands Income Tax Department for filing SLPs with considerable delays

Supreme Court reprimands the Income Tax Department for filing Special Leave Petitions with considerable delays only to seek an imprimatur of the Apex Court

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4171 (2024) (07) SC

In A recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Income Tax Department for filing SLPs with considerable delays.

The Income Tax Department  had filed a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the High Court which upheld the judgment of the ITAT that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

In the instant case there is gross delay of 484 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay was not found satisfactory by the Court and therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay and SLP was dismissed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Income Tax Department has been consistently filing Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court even when there was gross delay of hundreds of days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that apparently, there is no immediate attention bestowed on the cases so as to seek urgent relief and possibly, despite enormous delay, the Special Leave Petitions have been filed only to seek an imprimatur of this Court in the cases. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court strongly disapproved this practice of the Department in doing so.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned the ITD that it is necessary that the Department takes into consideration only those cases which are fit enough and have merit to be filed before this Court expeditiously and does not make it a habit to assail almost every order or judgment which is otherwise correct in law and facts and file Special Leave Petitions belatedly. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT
• FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied
• Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company
• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA