COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) vs. M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) L TO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/752/2016HC DelhiDLHC01174067201630 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the application for condonation of delay of 1042 days is rejected as the explanation provided was unsatisfactory and did not meet the requirements of "sufficient cause". Furthermore, the Court was of the opinion that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. This was because the ITAT had followed the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 226, on the issue of interpretation of Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed after a delay of 1042 days, and the explanation provided for the delay was deemed unsatisfactory. The assessee is M/s Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision concerning the interpretation of Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the ITAT had followed a Supreme Court decision on this issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1042 days in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of "sufficient cause"? 2. Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law, particularly concerning the interpretation of Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. The assessee was represented by Sh. Satyen Sethi and Sh. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, represented by Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates, argued that the delay should be condoned and that the appeal raises a substantial question of law. The revenue's contention regarding the merits of the case, beyond the reliance on the Supreme Court decision, is not explicitly detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 752/2016, C.M. APPL.40129/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) ..... Appellant Through : Sh. Sanjay Kumar and Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Advocates.

versus

M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD...... Respondent Through : Sh. Satyen Sethi and Sh. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

30.11.2016

C.M. APPL.40129/2016

The appeal has been refiled after an inordinate delay of 1042 days. The explanation too is unsatisfactory. Much less, it does not meet with the requirements of what constitutes “sufficient cause”. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected. ITA 752/2016

Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law, having regard to the fact that on the issue of interpretation of Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has followed the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 293 ITR 226. The appeal too is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 30, 2016/ajk

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →