VEDANTA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 26(1)

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7207/2019HC DelhiDLHC01028134201909 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.05.2019, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The Court reasoned that the penalty was predicated on an assessment order dated 28.11.2018, which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT on 04.02.2019. Therefore, the penalty order was passed when the assessment order, which formed its basis, did not subsist. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the penalty order. However, it observed that if the revenue were to succeed in their appeal before the ITAT (ITA No. 873/2019) concerning the assessment order, the issue of penalty leviability could be re-examined. The right of the respondents to address all submissions in ITA No. 873/2019 was reserved.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vedanta Limited (successor to Cairn India Limited), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty was imposed based on a final assessment order dated 28.11.2018. However, this assessment order was subsequently quashed and set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 04.02.2019. The impugned penalty order was passed after the assessment order had been set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when the underlying assessment order has been quashed and set aside by the ITAT? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the penalty order is unsustainable as it was passed subsequent to the quashing of the assessment order by the ITAT. The penalty's foundation, the assessment order, no longer subsisted. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding the validity of the penalty order in light of the quashed assessment order. However, the judgment notes that the revenue may succeed in a related appeal (ITA No. 873/2019) before the ITAT, which could impact the re-examination of penalty leviability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7207/2019

VEDANTA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aditya Vohra & Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 26(1)

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Mrs. Priya Sarkar, JSCs & Mr. Sundarshan Roy, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

09.05.2024 O R D E R

1.

This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: “a) Writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Respondent under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of assessment year 2014-15; b) A writ of and/ or order and/ or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding the Respondent to forebear from giving effect to and/ or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/ or furtherance of the impugned order dated 31.05.2019 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2014- 15; c) Direction granting ad interim stay on the operation of the impugned order and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, pending disposal of the present writ petition; d) Such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:59:41

2.

The solitary question which arises for our consideration is the validity of the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. It becomes pertinent to note that the levy of penalty itself was predicated upon a final assessment which was made in the case of the writ petitioner on 28 November 2018. That order of assessment was ultimately quashed and set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] in terms of its judgment rendered on 04 February 2019. The order impugned before us undisputedly came to be passed thereafter and on 31 May 2019. 3. It is manifest that the same came to be made even when the order of assessment did not subsist. In view of the aforesaid, we find ourselves unable to sustain the order impugned in the instant writ petition. 4. We, however, note that the order of the ITAT dated 04 February 2019 presently forms subject matter of ITA No. 873/2019. In view of the aforesaid, we may only observe that in case the respondents here were to succeed in that appeal, appropriate directions with respect to whether penalty would be leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case can always be re-examined. 5. Subject to the aforesaid observation, we allow the instant writ petition and set aside the order dated 31 May 2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We reserve the right of the respondents to address all submissions in ITA No. 873/2019.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 9, 2024/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:59:41

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →