COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/877/2015HC Delhi18 November 20155 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue's internal administrative issues, like the omission and delay in issuing a corrigendum, cannot extend the limitation period under Section 275(1)(a). The ITAT's view that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the ITAT's decision that penalty proceedings were time-barred. The issue arose from a delay in the Revenue receiving the ITAT's quantum appeal order due to an omission in a decentralization order.

What were the issues?

Whether the limitation period for penalty proceedings under Section 275(1)(a) begins from the date the ITAT's quantum appeal order is received by the concerned CIT, despite administrative delays by the Revenue in processing the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 275(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 1 of 5

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32. +

ITA 877/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

versus

DANGSON HOTEL &RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

WITH 33. +

ITA 878/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

versus

DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

WITH 34. +

ITA 879/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate. 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 04/04/2026 at 21:49:06

ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 2 of 5

versus

DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

WITH 35. +

ITA 880/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

versus

DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

WITH 36. +

ITA 881/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

versus

DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

AND 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 04/04/2026 at 21:49:06

ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 3 of 5

37.

+

ITA 882/2015

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg, Advocate.

versus

DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Pranjal Srivastava, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R %

18.11.2015 CM No.27006/2015 in ITA 877/2015 CM No.27009/2015 in ITA 879/2015 CM No.27011/2015 in ITA 880/2015 CM No.27013/2015 in ITA 881/2015 CM No.27015/2015 in ITA 882/2015 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. CM Nos.27007, 27008, 27010, 27012, 27014 and 27016/2015 3. Mr Sawhney, learned counsel for the Appellant has handed over the affidavit of the concerned CIT in support of these applications. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications are disposed of. 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 04/04/2026 at 21:49:06

ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 4 of 5

ITA 877 to 882/2015 4. The short issue that arises for consideration in these appeals from the common order dated 13th March, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.4438/Del/2012, 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671/Del/2012 for Assessment Years (‘AY’) 2001-02 to 2006-07 is whether the ITAT was right in holding that the limitation under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act would begin from 19th July, 2010 the date on which the order dated 30th April 2010 passed by the ITAT in the quantum appeal was received by the CIT (Central-II)?

5.

The narration of facts shows that the cases on hand, along with certain other cases, was sent by the CIT Central -II to the Chief CIT on 21st May 2010 for approval of decentralisation under Section 127 of the Act. When the order of decentralisation was passed by the Chief CIT on 28th May, 2010, the case of the Respondent Assessee was omitted from the list of decentralized cases. A corrigendum was issued subsequently on 17th September, 2010 and, thereafter, a certified copy of the order of the ITAT was received by the concerned CIT-IV on 30th September, 2010.

6.

It is not possible for the Court to accept the plea of the Revenue that the 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 04/04/2026 at 21:49:06

ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 5 of 5

period of limitation as far as Section 275(1)(a) of the Act is concerned should, in the above circumstances, commence not from 19th July 2010 when the order of the ITAT in the quantum appeal was received by the CIT- Central II but from 30th September 2010 when it was received by the CIT - IV. The omission to include the case of the Respondent in the order of decentralisation and the subsequent delay in issuing the corrigendum are entirely attributable to the Revenue and will not extend the time frame envisioned under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act. To permit such a plea of the Revenue will tantamount to reading into Section 275(1) (a) of the Act words that do not exist.

7.

Consequently, the view of the ITAT that these cases are barred by limitation suffers from no legal infirmity.

8.

No substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 MK 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 04/04/2026 at 21:49:06

More judgments on Section 275(1)(a)

All 117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 275(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →