PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9 vs. M/S UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1116/2017HC DelhiDLHC01337944201705 December 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM No.44228/2017) due to a substantial delay of 374 days and the absence of a convincing or reasonable explanation. The Court found the Revenue's grounds, such as file movement, workload, and administrative circumstances, to be insufficient cause for the delay. However, the delay in re-filing was condoned (CM No.44229/2017). Regarding the substantive appeal, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose. The issue sought to be urged by the Revenue concerning the remand on the disallowance under Section 14A was covered by the Delhi High Court's own judgment in Cheminvest Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: 378 ITR 33. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -9, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a substantial delay of 374 days. The assessee, M/s Unitech Residential Resorts Limited, was represented by none. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay. The core issue the Revenue intended to raise concerned a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 26,21,77,377/-. The Revenue's explanation for the delay was general, citing file movement, workload, and administrative circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Court should condone the substantial delay of 374 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the explanation provided. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued for condonation of delay, attributing it to file movement, workload, and other administrative circumstances, seeking to present the appeal on merits. 2. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration regarding the ITAT's decision on the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 26,21,77,377/-, which the Revenue sought to challenge through a remand. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the issue of remand on Section 14A was a question of law that needed to be urged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1116/2017 Page 1 $~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1116/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. versus M/S UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 05.12.2017 CM No.44228/2017 (for condonation of delay in filing) & CM No.44229/2017 (for condonation of delay in re-filing) At the outset, this Court notices that there is a substantial delay – of 374 days in filing of the appeal, although the delay indicated is much less. No convincing or reasonable explanation has been given except precise movement of the file. Even otherwise, this Court notices that there is an enduring delay in filing of the appeal. A general ground that there was work overload with the Revenue and other administrative and unusual circumstances, is not “sufficient cause”. In the circumstances, the delay in filing cannot be condoned; CM No.44228 is, accordingly, dismissed. For the reasons stated in the application, The delay in re-

ITA 1116/2017 Page 2 filing of the appeal is, however, condoned; CM No.44229 is allowed. ITA 1116/2017 The issue sought to be urged as a question of law, i.e., remand on the issue of Section 14A, which was used by the AO to disallow the sum of Rs.26,21,77,377/- is covered by the judgment of this Court in Cheminvest Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: 378 ITR 33. In the circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 05, 2017 st

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →