THE PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -3 vs. DELHI TRANSCO LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1404/2018HC DelhiDLHC01539421201707 December 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. Consequently, the applications and the appeal were treated as dismissed. The reasoning for not issuing notice was based on the acceptance by the Revenue's counsel that the additions made were revenue neutral, as Rs. 16.82 crores were offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. Furthermore, the assessee had returned a loss for the assessment year in question (2005-06), and the assessment order was framed at a loss despite the additions. The Tribunal's observation that the right to receive had not accrued due to a pending appeal by NTPC before the High Court of Delhi against the Central Electricity Regulatory Council's decision, and that payment was neither received nor paid, also contributed to the decision to dismiss the appeal without a detailed hearing on merits.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3 (Revenue) against Delhi Transco Ltd. (assessee) for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee had returned a loss for the assessment year. The assessment order, despite additions, was framed at a loss. The Revenue accepted that the additions made were revenue neutral, as Rs. 16.82 crores were offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal had referred to an appeal preferred by NTPC before the High Court of Delhi against a decision of the Central Electricity Regulatory Council, indicating that the right to receive had not accrued and payment was neither received nor paid.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the income had accrued to the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06, considering the pending appeal before the High Court of Delhi against the decision of the Central Electricity Regulatory Council. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The Tribunal's reasoning, as noted by the High Court, suggests that the right to receive had not accrued, and payment was not received or paid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue accepted that the additions made were revenue neutral, as Rs. 16.82 crores were offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue's counsel also accepted that the additions made were revenue neutral for Rs. 16.82 crores was offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue's counsel accepted that the additions made were revenue neutral for Rs. 16.82 crores was offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1404/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Rai, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanampreet Singh, Adv. versus DELHI TRANSCO LTD. ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 07.12.2018 CM APPL. No 51376/2018 (Delay of 35 days in filing) and CM APPL. No. 51377/2018 (Delay of 315 days in re-filing) and ITA No. 1404/2018 Before issuing notice in the applications for condonation of delay in filing and delay in re-filing, we deem it appropriate to hear counsel for the Revenue on merits. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue accepts that additions made were Revenue neutral for Rs. 16.82 crores was offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. The respondent-assessee had returned loss income for the assessment year in question i.e. 2005-06. Even the assessment order in spite of addition was framed at a loss. On merits, i.e., whether income accrued, the Tribunal had referred to

the fact that NTPC has preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against the decision of Central Electricity Regulatory Council. In these circumstances the right to receive had not accrued. Certainly, payment was not received or paid. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not issuing notice on the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing. Consequently, the applications and the appeal would be treated as dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. DECEMBER 07, 2018/uj

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →