THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -06 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/923/2018HC DelhiDLHC01231557201827 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.). The Court found no merit in the present appeal, noting that it was filed after the ITAT's stay order had expired. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Revenue's request for adjournments before the ITAT, followed by an appeal to vacate the stay due to delay, presented a contradiction in their stand. The Court suggested that the Tribunal might have been better advised to decline adjournments and decide the appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the High Court was not inclined to condone the delay of 37 days and dismissed both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-06 against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on January 31, 2018. The ITAT order extended a stay for six months, until July 31, 2018, or until the appeal was decided, whichever was earlier. The present appeal was filed in August 2018, after the stay order had expired. The ITAT order noted that the Revenue had sought multiple adjournments before the Tribunal, which justified the extension of the stay. The High Court observed that the Revenue's conduct of seeking adjournments and then appealing to vacate the stay due to delay was contradictory. The appeal was filed with a delay of 37 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal against an ITAT order extending a stay, particularly when the appeal is filed after the stay period has expired and the Revenue's conduct before the ITAT involved seeking multiple adjournments. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of procedural fairness and appellate jurisdiction). Assessee's Contentions: The respondent-assessee argued that the Revenue's conduct in seeking adjournments before the ITAT and then filing an appeal to vacate the stay due to delay was contradictory and lacked merit. The assessee's position was implicitly supported by the High Court's observations. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant-Revenue contended that the ITAT order extending the stay was erroneous. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's specific arguments for this appeal, but it implies they sought to vacate the stay.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 923/2018 & C.M.No.34407/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -06..... Appellant

Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Devika Jain, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

27.08.2018

The issue raised in the present appeal is covered by decision of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.). The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 31st January, 2018 had extended the stay for six month till 31st July, 2018 or decision of the appeal which ever was earlier. The present appeal was preferred in August, 2018, i.e. after the stay order had ceased to be effective. Further, the impugned order states that the Revenue had sought a number of adjournments before the Tribunal and, therefore, it was necessary to extend the stay. Conduct and repeated requests for adjournment by the Departmental Representatives would only fortify

and justify the contention of the respondent-assessee. Revenue cannot pray and ask for adjournments before the Tribunal and then file an appeal for vacation of stay on account of delay in disposal. There is contradiction in the stand of the Revenue. Perhaps the Tribunal should have declined the requests for adjournment and heard and decided the appeal ex-parte. For reasons stated, we do not find merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, we are not inclined to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay of 37 days. The appeal and the application for condonation of delay are dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. AUGUST 27, 2018 NA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →