MARATHON ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX APPEALATE TRIBUNAL DELHI & OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had not provided any data or material particulars to substantiate their claim that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was taking an unduly long time in deciding the appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) for assessment year 2003-04. Without such evidence, the Court found no grounds to issue the requested directions for expeditious disposal. The Court did not address the petitioner's prayer for a direction to the DCIT for recovery of the amount not covered by a stay order, as the primary relief sought was the direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal, which was denied.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Marathon Electric India Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to expeditiously dispose of an appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) for assessment year 2003-04. The DCIT's appeal, filed in August 2008, challenged an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that was favorable to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that this appeal has been pending for ten years, causing delays in hearing other appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to 2011-12 due to a common issue regarding Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also highlighted that an amount of ₹21 crores paid by them is with the DCIT, and another ₹10.4 crores is not covered by any stay order. A previous writ petition in 2017 had also directed the ITAT to expedite the disposal of the pending appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to expeditiously dispose of the Income Tax Appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) for assessment year 2003-04, which has been pending for ten years. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal has been pending for an inordinate period, causing prejudice and affecting other pending appeals due to common issues. They sought a direction for expeditious disposal and also for a direction to the DCIT for recovery of an amount not covered by a stay order. Revenue's Contention: The High Court noted that the petitioner had not furnished any data regarding the number of pending appeals before the ITAT, nor had they provided material particulars to demonstrate that the Tribunal was taking an unduly long time in deciding the appeal filed by the DCIT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 3.08.2018
Marathon Electric India Private Limited
……Petitioner
Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and another
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate and Mr. Parshant
Meharchandani, Advocate and Mr. Abhivadya Sood,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
Prayer in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to respondent No.1- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”) to expeditiously dispose of the Income Tax Appeal filed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad in relation to assessment year 2003-04 pending before the Tribunal for the last ten years.
A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner-Marathon Electric India Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Fractional Horse Power Motors and laminations used in the Motors and trading of pumps and Integral Horse Power Motors. Against the assessment Gurbax Singh 2018.08.27 10:43 order dated 23.03.2006 passed by respondent No.2 for assessment year 2003-04, disallowing the petitioner the deduction under Section 10B and several other deductions, the petitioner company got a completely favourable order dated 23.05.2008 from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)]. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before respondent No.1 in August, 2008. According to the petitioner, the said appeal is pending before the Tribunal for the last so many years on one pretext or the other. The petitioner asserts that, since 2008, several income tax appeals had been filed in its case before respondent No.1 in relation to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2011-12 on account of the common issue of Section 10B of the Act. The said appeals are not being heard because the issue relating to Section 10B of the Act is pending adjudication in earlier assessment year 2003-04. Further, an amount of ` 21 crores paid by the petitioner is lying with respondent No.
Moreover, there is an amount of ` 10.4 crores which is not covered by any stay order and the petitioner prays for a direction to respondent No.2 for recovery of the said amount. In CWP No. 1064 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.1 allowing the application for filing additional grounds, this Court, vide order dated 20.01.2017 had given directions to respondent No.1 to make sincere efforts for deciding the pending appeal expeditiously. Thus, the petitioner prays for a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal relating to the assessment year 2003-04 pending before respondent No.
Hence, the instant petition by the petitioner.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal is already pending for 09.08.2018 before the Tribunal. Moreover, the petitioner in the writ petition has not furnished any data containing the particulars with regard to the number of appeals which are pending before the Tribunal. Further, no material particulars have been furnished by the petitioner on the basis of which it can be said that the Tribunal is taking unduly long time in deciding the appeal filed by respondent No.2. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to issue any direction as prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
August 3, 2018
(Avneesh Jhingan)
‘gs’
Judge Whether speaking/reasoned
Yes Whether reportable
Yes
More judgments on Section 10B
- Brainbees Solutions Limited, Pune… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITTPA 1431/PUN/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- ACIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs Galaxy Surfactants Limited, MumbaiITA 6984/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Pvt… vs D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), KolkataITTPA 4/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- T vs Motor Co. Ltd., Chennaivs.DCIT, Corp…ITTPA 52/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Vrajlal Chanabhai Kachhadiya, Jamnagar vs ITO, Ward-2(6), JamnagarITA 847/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026