PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NAVYUG PROMOTERS PVT LTTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/736/2016HC DelhiDLHC01208070201626 October 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that no reasonable cause or sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay of 728 days. The Court also held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court noted that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act had been settled by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ankitech P. Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del), a decision which was followed by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for other assessment years. Therefore, the ITAT had merely followed the established precedent. The appeal and the application for condonation of delay were accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 728 days. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay. The assessee is Navyug Promoters Pvt Ltd. The appeal concerns the applicability of deemed dividend provisions under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT had followed a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for other assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 728 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the Revenue. (Question of fact) 2. Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the facts of the case. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments were recorded on behalf of the assessee as none appeared. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the delay was caused by confusion due to the reorganisation of the government panel and the large number of pending cases. Regarding the merits, the Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision on the applicability of Section 2(22)(e), but the Court noted that this issue was no longer res integra.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 736/2016, CM APPL.40106-40107/2016

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel.

versus

NAVYUG PROMOTERS PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R %

26.10.2016

ITA 736/2016, CM APPL.40106-40107/2016 (condonation of delay) There is a delay of 728 days. The Court is of the opinion that no reasonable cause has been shown as to qualify the matter to fall within the definition of “sufficient cause”. For the delay of 728 days, the standard ground is confusion brought about by reorganisation of the government panel and the large number of cases pending. In the circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned. Even on merits, the question of law urged, i.e., applicability of deemed dividend provision under Section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act is no longer res integra and has been answered in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ankitech P. Ltd., (2012) 340 ITR 14 (Del) which was followed by this Court in the assessee’s case in other

assessment years. The ITAT has merely followed that decision. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 26, 2016 /vikas/

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →