![Cover image for the article: [SC] SLP Filed by Income-Tax Department Dismissed on the Ground of Delay of 325 Days](https://framerusercontent.com/images/ISaA0AcwKpHvC9iqNhl73x46xM.jpg?width=5272&height=3515)
Introduction
In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Boeing India (P.) Ltd.[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) adjudicated a special leave petition (‘SLP’). The SLP filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 (‘petitioner’) against Boeing India (P) Ltd. (‘taxpayer’) was dismissed due to procedural delay. The SC found the petitioner’s justification unsatisfactory. The SLP originated from a judgment by the Delhi High Court (‘HC’), which addressed various disputes concerning the taxpayer under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and held in favour of the taxpayer.
Brief Facts
The assessing officer (‘AO’) adjusted the income of the taxpayer concerning interest on outstanding receivables. The AO adjusted the taxpayer’s income, assuming interest should be accrued on the outstanding receivables.
The taxpayer contended in the HC that the company was debt-free and neither paid interest to creditors/ suppliers nor earned interest from unrelated parties.
The HC held that since the taxpayer did not incur any interest expenses or earn interest from unrelated parties, the question of imputing interest on receivables did not arise. Therefore, the adjustment made by the AO was deleted.
The second issue was related to the deduction of tax at source. The High Court determined that s. 195, which pertains to payments to non-residents, does not apply when the nature of the payment is classified as salary and tax has already been deducted under s. 192.
The petitioner filed an SLP against the HC’s decision, but there was a substantial delay of 325 days in the filing.
Held
The SC reviewed the petitioner’s delay in filing the SLP. Observing a substantial delay of 325 days, the HC found the petitioner’s justification for this delay unsatisfactory. Consequently, the SC dismissed the SLP, highlighting the importance of adhering to timelines in legal processes.
Conclusion
The SC rightly dismissed the SLP due to an unjustified delay, emphasising the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. This decision shows the importance of timely justice and procedural discipline.
End Note
[i] [2024] 158 taxmann.com 214 (SC)
Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion
More Insights
25 Aug 2026
12
Min Read
A Game of Treasure Hunt: Service of GST Notices and Orders under S. 169 of the CGST Act and the Emerging Split among High Courts
Luxmi Traders addresses a fundamental question in GST adjudication: can a notice or order be treated as duly served merely because it is uploaded on the Common Portal? The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that portal-only service, absent the requisite statutory and notified basis, cannot by itself defeat a taxpayer’s remedies. With Madras and Allahabad adopting different approaches and Delhi subsequently applying Luxmi Traders, the issue reflects a significant divergence in judicial approach awaiting authoritative resolution.
10 Jul 2026
7
Min Read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
23 Apr 2026
18
Min Read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.