Transfer Pricing Dispute: Delhi HC Refuses to Condone Income Tax Department’s 1285-Day Delay in Re-Filing Appeal [Read Order]
The court held that the Income Tax Department failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the 1285-day delay in re-filing its transfer pricing appeal and dismissed the case.
![Transfer Pricing Dispute: Delhi HC Refuses to Condone Income Tax Department’s 1285-Day Delay in Re-Filing Appeal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/12/30/2115842-delhi-high-court-condone-income-tax-department-condonation-of-delay-condonation-condonation-delay-taxscan.webp "Transfer Pricing Dispute: Delhi HC Refuses to Condone Income Tax Department’s 1285-Day Delay in Re-Filing Appeal [Read Order]")
The Delhi High Court has rejected the Income Tax Department's request to condone a huge delay of 1285 days in re-filing their appeal in a transfer pricing case. The court said the department gave no good reason for such a long wait. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) filed this appeal against the decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT...
The Delhi High Court has rejected the Income Tax Department's request to condone a huge delay of 1285 days in re-filing their appeal in a transfer pricing case. The court said the department gave no good reason for such a long wait.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) filed this appeal against the decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had supported the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)'s order to exclude "comparables" while calculating the TCK Advisers Pvt. Ltd (assessee) fair market price in a transfer pricing adjustment.
The tax department argued in court that their Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had chosen the right comparables and used proper methods to decide the arm's length price (fair price between related companies). They claimed the ITAT was wrong and wanted the court to look into some important legal questions from the ITAT's order.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that there was a serious procedural lapse on the part of the revenue. The court observed that the appeal suffered from a delay of 1285 days in re-filing and the explanation offered for this delay was neither convincing nor adequate.
The court explained that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and requires a reasonable and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. In the present case, the revenue failed to justify why such an extraordinary delay occurred and why corrective steps were not taken within a reasonable time.
The court pointed out that the delay itself was sufficient to dismiss the appeal in the absence of a proper explanation. The court also observed that the findings of the DRP and the ITAT were based on detailed factual analysis which did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
The court dismissed the appeal both on the ground of unexplained delay in re-filing and on the merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
