THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/937/2018HC DelhiDLHC01196682201828 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court found no reason for the Revenue to prefer the appeal, especially since its departmental representative had repeatedly sought adjournments before the lower authority. Furthermore, the Court noted that the issue involved was covered by its earlier decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 376 ITR 87(Del). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 (the Revenue) against an order that extended a stay granted to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (the assessee). The Revenue's departmental representative had repeatedly sought adjournments before the lower authority. The High Court noted that it failed to understand the reason for the Revenue preferring this appeal given the repeated adjournments sought by its representative. The issue was also stated to be covered by a previous decision of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeal against an order extending a stay granted to the assessee, where the Revenue's representative had sought repeated adjournments, is maintainable. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue preferred the appeal, but the specific grounds or arguments are not detailed. However, the judgment implies the Revenue argued for the appeal to be heard on merits. The Revenue relied on the fact that the departmental representative had sought repeated adjournments as a reason for the impugned order being passed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 937/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate

versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate

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

O R D E R %

28.08.2018

The impugned order extends the stay granted to the assessee, in view of the repeated adjournments sought for and prayed by the departmental representative. We fail to understand the reason why the Revenue has preferred the present appeal, as its departmental representative had sought repeated adjournments.

Even otherwise, the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 376 ITR 87(Del).

Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed, without any order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J AUGUST 28, 2018/tp

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →