OM NANOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/734/2020HC DelhiDLHC01009165202006 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the ITAT and CIT(A). The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to provide adequate evidence to support their claim that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the misplacement of papers by their Chartered Accountant. The Court noted that neither an affidavit nor a letter from the Chartered Accountant was placed on record, and the writ petition itself lacked material to lend credence to this contention. Consequently, the relief sought by the petitioner, including exemption under Section 10AA and setting aside of the impugned orders, was denied. The issue of exemption under Section 10AA was not decided on merits as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Nanotech Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging orders dated July 14, 2017, July 11, 2014, and March 11, 2013. These orders were passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the respondent authority, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s decision. The core issue was the refusal to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A). The petitioner's explanation for the delay was that the appeal papers were misplaced by their Chartered Accountant. The High Court noted that no supporting affidavit or letter from the Chartered Accountant was filed, a fact also observed by the ITAT. The court also found no material in the writ petition to substantiate the petitioner's claim regarding the misplaced papers.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, thereby denying the petitioner exemption under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2009-10? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the appeal papers being misplaced by their Chartered Accountant and sought condonation of this delay to allow them exemption under Section 10AA. They also sought to declare the impugned orders as arbitrary, perverse, void, and ultra vires. Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their position was implicitly upheld by the CIT(A) and ITAT's decisions to refuse condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 734/2020 & CM APPL. 2172/2020 (delay)

OM NANOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Manisha Arora counsel for

Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Adv.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, Sr. Adv.

with Ms. Zehra Khan and Mr.

Vikramaditya, JSCs along with

Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Ms.

Anauntta Shankar and Mr.

Vineet Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

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

O R D E R %

06.05.2024

1.

This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: “I. Set-aside the Impugned Orders dated 14.07.2017, 11.07.2014 and 11.03.2013 passed by the respective Learned Tribunal/ Respondent and allow the Petitioner/Assessee exemption under section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2009-10.

II. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of certiorari declaring the Impugned Orders to be arbitrary, perverse, void and ultra vires.

III. To condone the delay and thereby deciding the matter on merit.”

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 08/05/2024 at 12:45:52

2.

Although we had accorded liberty to the writ petitioner to move an appropriate amendment application, no steps in that respect have been taken. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] and which has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] refusing to condone the delay which had been caused in the filing of the appeal. 3. We note that before the CIT(A), the petitioner had essentially taken the position that the appeal papers had been misplaced by their Chartered Accountant. However, no letter or affidavit of that Chartered Accountant appears to have been filed on the record. This is an aspect which has also been noticed by the ITAT. 4. We additionally note that even in the instant writ petition, there is no material which has been placed and which may have lend some credence or support to the contention as was addressed before the ITAT. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 06, 2024/p

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 08/05/2024 at 12:45:52

More judgments on Section 10AA

All 857 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →