PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/505/2023HC DelhiDLHC01000129202105 September 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 439 days in re-filing the appeals. The Court noted that the issue raised in the appeals was not disputed by the Revenue to be covered by a previous decision of the High Court concerning the Assessee. The Court also observed that the Assessing Officer's view of treating income from property abutting the hotel as income from house property had not found favour with the court in earlier years. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court also noted that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court and stated that if the Revenue succeeded in the SLP, parties would abide by the Supreme Court's decision in these appeals. The appeals were then closed.

What were the facts?

The appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against CJ International Hotels Ltd. (Assessee) for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were delayed by 439 days in re-filing. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, which was not objected to by the Assessee. The appeals challenged a common order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 6,96,49,798/- in each assessment year, treating income from property abutting the hotel as income from house property. The High Court noted that this view had not found favour with the court in earlier years concerning the Assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals, given that the issue is covered by a previous decision of this Court concerning the respondent/assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. C.J . International Hotels Ltd, 2010:DHC:5567-DB? Assessee's Contention: The Assessee, through its counsel, did not object to the condonation of delay applications filed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its standing counsel, did not dispute that the issue raised in the appeals was covered by the aforementioned decision of this Court concerning the Assessee. The Revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the coordinate bench's decision was pending before the Supreme Court, and parties would abide by the Supreme Court's decision if the Revenue succeeded in the SLP.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 504/2023 & 505/2023

Page 1 of 3

$~36 & 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Decision delivered on: 05.09.2023 + ITA 504/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.

versus

C J INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr Mayank Nagi, Adv.

+ ITA 505/2023

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.

versus

CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Mayank Nagi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM APPL. 45856/2023 in ITA No. 504/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 439 days in re- filing the appeal]. CM APPL. 45857/2023 in ITA No. 505/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 439 days in re- Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:26.09.2023 12:40:11 Signature Not Verified

ITA 504/2023 & 505/2023

Page 2 of 3

filing the appeal]. 1. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the above-captioned appeals. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 439 days in re- filing each of the above-captioned appeals. 3. Mr Mayank Nagi, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he would not have any objection if the prayers made in the above- captioned applications are allowed. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in the above-captioned appeals. 5. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 504/2023 & ITA 505/2023 6. It is not disputed by Mr Sanjeev Menon, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, that the issue raised in the above-captioned appeals stands covered by the decision dated 18.11.2010, concerning the respondent/assessee rendered in a bunch of appeals including Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. C.J . International Hotels Ltd, 2010:DHC:5567-DB. 7. The above-captioned appeals concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2013- 14 [ITA No. 504/2023] & AY 2014-15 [ITA No. 505/2023]. 8. These appeals assail a common order dated 26.08.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 9. The Assessing Officer has made an addition amounting to Rs. 6,96,49,798/-, in each of the above-captioned AY, by categorizing the same as income derived from house property abutting the subject hotel. 10. In the earlier years this view has not found favour with this court. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:26.09.2023 12:40:11 Signature Not Verified

ITA 504/2023 & 505/2023

Page 3 of 3

11.

Therefore, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 12. We may note that the appellant/revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the aforementioned decision of the coordinate bench of this Court. 13. We are informed that the said SLP is pending consideration. 14. It is made clear that if the appellant/revenue are to succeed in the said SLP, parties will abide by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in these appeals as well. 15. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeals are closed. 16. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER JUDGE

GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 5, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:26.09.2023 12:40:11 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →