PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 1 vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/88/2018HC DelhiDLHC01489005201729 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's orders. The Court observed that the ITAT had correctly applied the ratio of its own previous decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.). This precedent likely dealt with the powers of the ITAT concerning stay of demand. Since the ITAT acted in accordance with established High Court precedent, the Revenue's contention that the ITAT exceeded its statutory powers was not accepted. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had extended the period of stay of demand for the assessee, M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's extension of the stay period exceeded its statutory powers. The High Court noted that the ITAT had considered and applied the ratio of this Court's previous decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.). The appeals were filed for assessment years that are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the statutory power to extend the period of stay of demand beyond the period prescribed by law? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the ITAT's extension of the stay of demand was beyond its statutory powers. The Revenue relied on the principle that statutory powers cannot be exceeded. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The ITAT, in its impugned order, was stated to have applied the ratio of this Court's decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~38 to 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 88/2018

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 1

..... Appellant

versus

M/S PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

+ ITA 89/2018

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 1

..... Appellant

versus

M/S PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

+ ITA 90/2018

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 1

..... Appellant

versus

M/S PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Present: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.

Ms. Rashi Khanna with Mr. Harpreet Ajmani, Advs. for respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

29.01.2018

The impugned orders in these appeals by the Revenue, have extended the period of stay of demand. Revenue urges that the extension granted is beyond the statutory power of the Tribunal; ITA 88/2018 & connected matters

Page 1 of 2

however, the ITAT was cognizant of and applied the ratio of this Court’s decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.).

In these circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 29, 2018 kks

ITA 88/2018 & connected matters

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →