COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2 NEW DELHI vs. M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/237/2022HC DelhiDLHC01028719202201 August 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous. This was due to the subsequent order dated October 29, 2021, passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated December 9, 2020, concerning Grounds 6 and 7, pursuant to an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Department had failed to disclose this crucial subsequent order to its counsel or the Court. The Court expressed its view that there was no necessity for filing the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant expressed regret for filing an infructuous appeal. The High Court disposed of the appeal and the application as infructuous, directing the Income Tax Department to be more careful in the future. The Court clarified that the appellant was at liberty to file a separate appeal if it desired, challenging the liability to deposit advance tax and interest thereon.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation 2, New Delhi) filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated December 9, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The appeal primarily contested the ITAT's decision on Grounds 6 and 7. However, the respondent (M/s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.) presented a subsequent order dated October 29, 2021, passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order concerning Grounds 6 and 7, pursuant to an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Department had not disclosed this subsequent order to its counsel or the Court. The High Court noted that the present appeal had become infructuous due to the ITAT's subsequent order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's order dated December 9, 2020, is maintainable in light of the ITAT's subsequent order dated October 29, 2021, recalling its earlier decision on specific grounds. Assessee's Contention: The respondent did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the appeal but presented the subsequent ITAT order which rendered the appeal infructuous. The respondent's counsel handed over a photocopy of the ITAT's order recalling its earlier decision. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue filed the appeal challenging the ITAT's initial order dated December 9, 2020, primarily concerning Grounds 6 and 7. The Revenue's counsel expressed regret for filing an infructuous appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 237/2022 & CM APPL. 33408/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2 NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Zehra Khan and Mr. Shrey Nargotra, Advocates. versus M/S HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate with Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 01.08.2022 Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 09th December, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’) in ITA 1500/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Today, learned counsel for the respondent, has handed over in Court, a photocopy of the order dated 29th October, 2021 passed by the ITAT recalling its order vis-a-vis Grounds 6 and 7 in an application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is pertinent to mention that the present appeal filed on 16th June, 2022 challenges the initial order of the ITAT dated 09th December, 2020 primarily with regard to Grounds 6 and 7. 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 15/06/2026 at 01:50:23

Though the present appeal is supported by an affidavit of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 16th June, 2022, yet the subsequent order of the ITAT dated 29th October, 2021 was not disclosed by the Department either to its counsel or to this Court. In fact, this Court is of the view that there was no need for filing the present appeal in view of the subsequent order of the ITAT dated 29th October, 2021. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant expresses regret for filing an infructuous appeal. Recording the aforesaid regret and directing the Income Tax Department to be more careful in future, this Court disposes of the present appeal and application as infructuous. It is clarified that if the appellant so desires, it is at liberty to file a separate appeal challenging the liability to deposit advance tax and interest thereon. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has filed seven other appeals with the Registry of this Court. Registry is directed to list the said seven appeals filed vide Diary Nos.1058881/2022, 1058887/2022, 1058890/2022, 1058892/2022, 1058925/2022, 1058932/2022 and 1058947/2022 on 04th August, 2022. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 1, 2022 js 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 15/06/2026 at 01:50:23

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →