PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. CITI FINANCE CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/160/2016HC DelhiDLHC01026784201622 February 2016Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Court's reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the appeals themselves were defective, as indicated by the information provided regarding the appeals for earlier assessment years (2003-04 and 2004-05). The Court did not delve into the merits of any specific issue that might have been decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ratio decidendi is that if no substantial question of law arises, the appeal cannot be entertained. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

What were the facts?

These appeals, ITA 159/2016 and ITA 160/2016, were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 against the respondent, Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. The appeals pertain to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 and 2008-09. The High Court noted that similar appeals concerning AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 had been dealt with in a previous order dated 28th September, 2015, in ITA No.682/2015. At that time, it was understood that appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 had been filed. However, on the current date of hearing, 22nd February, 2016, the Court was informed that the Revenue's appeals for those earlier AYs were still defective. The present appeals for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 were also before the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Revenue contended that substantial questions of law arise, as indicated by their filing of these appeals. The Respondent (assessee) did not present any specific arguments as the Court was to decide on the existence of substantial questions of law. The Court's previous order in ITA No.682/2015 for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05, which dealt with the ITAT's order, was referenced. The Court was informed that appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 were still defective. The present appeals are for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 33. + ITA159/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel. versus CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. AND 34. + ITA 160/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing Counsel. versus CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 22.02.2016 CM No.6320/2016 in ITA 159/2016 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 159 & 160/2016 p^ge y of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

1^' 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 159/2016 & ITA 160/2016 3. The questions urged by the Revenue in these appeals have been dealt by this Court in its order dated 28'^ September, 2015 in ITA No.682/2015 (Pr. CIT V. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.) which was for Assessment Year ('AY') 2006-07. In that order, the submissions of the Revenue was that the appeals in respect of the ITAT's order for AYs 2003- 04 and 2004-05 "are learned to have been filed". Today, the Court is informed that the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 are still lying in defect. The present appeals relate to AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. 4. No substantial question of law arises as far as the present appeals are concerned. 5. The appeals are dismissed. FEBRUARY 22, 2016 MK S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J ITA 159 & 160/2016 Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →