Carmel Venture Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-I Lko.

1. Facts of the case

Respondent counsel sought time to object to the delay-condonation application in Defective Appeal 2/2024.

Source: PDF p.1

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Court granted two weeks and expressly no more time.

Source: PDF p.1

3. Judicial decision

Objections were permitted within two weeks; failing filing, the Court would proceed to necessary orders. List in the week commencing 29 April 2024 as fresh.

Source: PDF p.1

4. Outcome / in whose favour

Delay and appeal merits remained undecided.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

An objection deadline, not condonation

In INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 2 of 2024, respondent counsel received two weeks and expressly no more time to object to delay condonation. The warning was that the Court would proceed to necessary orders if objections were not filed. It did not say delay would automatically stand condoned.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order

Keep the pending application and separate appeal clear

The fresh listing was in the week commencing 29 April 2024. No delay period, explanation or merits issue was decided in this order. Carmel Venture’s Defective Appeals 2/2024 and 3/2024 are separate dockets despite identical directions; an objection or later condonation order must be tied to the correct appeal.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order