PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 vs. M/S BHILWARA ENERGY LTD.

ITAs 409/2023 & connected matters

Page 1 of 4

$~34 to 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision:28.07.2023 + ITAs 409/2023, 410/2023, 411/2023 & 412/2023

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Jr Standing Counsel.

versus

BHILWARA ENERGY LTD

..... Respondent

Through: None.

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. 38119/2023 in ITA 409/2023 CM APPL. 38122/2023 in ITA 410/2023 CM APPL. 38125/2023 in ITA 411/2023 CM APPL. 38128/2023 in ITA 412/2023

ITAs 409/2023 & connected matters

Page 2 of 4

ITAs 409/2023 & 411/2023 and 02 days in filing ITAs 410/2023 & 412/2023] 2. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 2 days in filing ITAs 410/2023 & 412/2023, while in ITAs 409/2023 & 411/2023, there is a delay of 11 days. 3. For the reasons, mentioned in the applications, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM APPL. 38118/2023 in ITA 409/2023 CM APPL. 38121/2023 in ITA 410/2023 CM APPL. 38124/2023 in ITA 411/2023 CM APPL. 38127/2023 in ITA 412/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 118 days in re- filing] 5. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 5.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 118 days. 6. For the reasons given in the applications, the delay is condoned. 7. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITAs 409/2023, 410/2023, 411/2023 & 412/2023

ITAs 409/2023 & connected matters

Page 3 of 4

02.08.2022. 10. Mr Abhishek Maratha, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, submits that the issue that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] in view of the fact that no income exempt from tax had been earned during the relevant period. 11. According to us, the issue is covered by the following decisions: (i) Judgement dated 02.09.2015 passed in ITA 749/2014, titled Cheminvest Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI. (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras). (iii) Order dated 30.05.2023 passed in ITA Nos. 316/2023 and 317/2023, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 4 v. IL And FS Energy Development Co Ltd. 12. Insofar as Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. is concerned, one of us [i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] was a member of the Bench. 12.1 Mr Maratha does not dispute that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred against the said judgment, which was dismissed via order dated 02.07.2018; which is reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC). The order passed by Supreme Court reads as follows: “1. The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.”

ITAs 409/2023 & connected matters

Page 4 of 4

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE

JULY 28, 2023 v

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:04.08.2023 11:38:08 Signature Not Verified