PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/28/2024HC DelhiDLHC01000459202410 January 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remitted the issue of a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 17,21,80,860/- made by the Assessee under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The ITAT found that the Assessee's subsequent contention that this disallowance was wrongly made was not before the lower authorities and required adjudication with reference to the Assessee's records. The ITAT directed the AO to consider the grounds and propositions presented by the Assessee's counsel, granting the Assessee an opportunity to be heard. The High Court, finding no substantial question of law, saw no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal before the Delhi High Court was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi (Revenue), against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had allowed the appeal and remitted an issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The issue involved a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 17,21,80,860/- made by Religare Enterprises Ltd. (Assessee) under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessee later contended that this disallowance was wrongly made. This specific ground was not considered by the lower authorities. The High Court was dealing with a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order allowing the appeal and remitting the issue of suo motu disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Assessee's Contentions: The Assessee argued that the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 17,21,80,860/- under Section 14A was wrongly made and required adjudication with reference to its records. The Assessee submitted various propositions with regard to this modified ground. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's primary contention, as evidenced by their filing of the appeal, was likely that the ITAT's order was erroneous. However, the judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments before the High Court regarding the substantial question of law. The judgment states that 'no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal' and therefore does not detail arguments from either side on this specific point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 28/2024 & CM APPL. 1572/2024 (104 Days Delay) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. SC with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Jr. SC along with Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. versus RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.01.2024 CM APPL. 1573/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 1572/2024 (104 Days Delay) Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application shall stand disposed of. ITA 28/2024 1. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], we find that the appeal has been allowed and the matter remitted with the following observations:- 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 17/05/2024 at 12:26:55

“5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the assessee is now raising ground challenging the disallowance which has been made by the assessee itself. Assessee has made suo moto disallowance of Rs.17,21,80,860/- under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Now, the assessee submits that this was wrongly done. This aspect was not before the authorities below. Assessee has made various submissions with regard to the aforesaid additional/modified grounds which need adjudication with reference to the assessee’s records. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised to the file of AO. AO is directed to consider the grounds and various propositions given by the ld. Counsel of the assessee as per law. Needless to add, assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard.” 2. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. 3. Consequently, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed on the aforesaid terms. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. JANUARY 10, 2024/ Neha/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 17/05/2024 at 12:26:55

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →