Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
X< IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA r.68 OF 2Or-1 ITA 169 ()F 2011 lrA 188 0F 201 1 ITA L89 0F 20L1 ITA L90 0F 20LL ITA L86 0F 201r. % IUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 19.O4,?Q11 -tUoCwterur OertVe :11.5'2OL1 (1) rTA 168 OF 2OL1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr' Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (2) rrA 169 OF 2OL1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (3) ITA L88 OF 2O1L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS tTA168/201 1,|TA 169/20L1,lrA 188/2011, rTA 189/2011, ITA 190/201 L,lTA 186/201.1- Page 1 of 3 2011:DHC:14059-DB
a NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (4) rrA L89 OF 2O1t COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (s) rrA r.9o oF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT Through : Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. . . . APPELLANT Ms. Rashmi ChoPra, Advocate. VERSUS NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ..RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil KaPoor, advocate with Mr. Sanat KaPoor, Advocate. (6) rTA 186 OF 2OL1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Through : 114168/201 1,rrA 169/201-1,lTA 188/2011., tTA 189/2011,1TA 190/20Ll.,lTA 186/201-L Page 2 of 3 2011:DHC:14059-DB
CORAM :- HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE M,L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see theJudgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. StKRt, l. 1. For orders, see ITA 164 of 2011. ^ -., IfYAu '1'' \ (A.K.SrKRr) JUDGE tu, (M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE MAY Lt, 2OL1 skb rT4168/201 1,rrA 169/2011,1rA 1BB/201 1, rrA 189/2011,trA 190/2011,1TA 186/2011 Page 3 of 3 2011:DHC:14059-DB
* IRI T'[-[E FflllGl'fl COUI1'T OF DHn-hflfl rl\11 N.trEM/ l)tLlt'Fllll jTA &64 0E-!3j,l1n I1A_&9S_AE_!KUe ll'a-&eg o-rul-qru ITAJqft-Qru!.ru ITF\ ngg qF rAgtn& llllA Iej), QF'.eqLU ilna_&gg 0E !3j:nn, ff.l@ G M E n{ r=EiE"i$EJqvl.-p e.Ni n 9*sl4neqJL& $i pS M E INT-lZE|lLJlGBllD 9N :g*1"fu?,p)-U[ (1) rT',r\_[.64:aJ8_AJ]"1n coMMls;s[oNHR otF tlucoME'rAX Tlrrough : Ms, Raslrnri ClroPra, Advo:ate. VERSUS , NI ll-[ K jAFDA[\n B RO/lDCrq,ST[ [\l G CO R F0O R,ATI O N " . lR [i S llDO |i{ D lH tNl'ir Tlrrough: Mr.r Salil l(apoor, advocate witlr M r. Sa tr a t l(.a Poor, Advor:ate. (2) ITA n6E ()F 203.X.. C()MM[$5[O[\IER OF IhnC@ME:FtrX ] o ",A,[:Dlp[it-lL/a\tNl'ii Through : Ms. Rashmi Clropra, Advor-ate. , VERSUS N ['{ K JAFDA NI B FIOI\DCA,STI [\n G C O Rp{O R/qTfl ()11.tr . " RtE S [DOll\[ D [E IUT Tlrrough: Mr.i Salil l(apoor, advocate with M r. Sa nat l(.a poor, Advo'.ate. (3) trr\ 1L6e_QE_Z_E4g ;@- .-t- + id COM M [ $5 [O,[\IE:R OF I hileOlvl E'[-/a\X Through : VERSUS " . " F\lI)ll'lE11-tL,Ati\l"il Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate tTA 1 64/201L,tTA 168/201 1,tTA 169/201 1-,tTA i.88/201 1, rrA 1 89/2011, tTA 190/201 l,tTA L96l20rr Page L of 13 2011:DHC:14059-DB
II" [t0ll'lK 1nf'rnnU BFROP\ECASTIIUG {EOlR,FrORAlfn()hl ..R|EStPO[\lDtHtNl"il- . Through: Mrr Selil l(apoor, advbcate urith Mr. Sanat l(apoor, Advocate. (4) r"ru\_!!-88_()E-2E.1..1, C0MM[$5[O[\IHR, OF thlC@ME ['l[\x i ' , ,, " ,f(1,ptpll]tltl,/\tiv"n Through : Ms. praslrmi C,lropra, Advo.":ate. VERSUS I .$ill-ilKjAFDAN tsFtOprDCA,ST'ilhlG CORFDC]RAlr[ONI ."F{tES[l'r,Oti\[DtHtN]'[' o Tlr rough: (s) xrr\_&.89-j)F_-20-&.L coMM[$s[On0ffi R oF thtcon/ilE'r'AX Through : (7) !T/LJL86_QF 20nn cOMrul[55[O[\[HR OF IRICOME T/uX rTA r- 64/201 1,tTA 1 68/201 1,tTA 169/201L,tTA 188/201 1, ITA 1 89/2011, tTA 1S0/20L l",tTA 186/2011 wtr; S.tlil l(apoor-, advocaLe 'witlr Mr. Sanat l(apoor, Advot:ate. Msr . ,, . /AFDpRlLtt,,r\tNT Rash nri C.hopra, te. " . . AppE[-LANlt'ir Page 2 of L3 Advo,:a .f VERSUS hn il'{ K .ilA $EA hil ts Fror\ Dc+fr H[3 co R FD o RAr''JiT, i;[ 53 TEHyJ:y[ with M r. Sa rra t l(a;roor, Advo,:ate. (6) rT4ulgg_gF_2qu. coMMl$sro**R oF rtr\nco'Hf ** t'' nu,i','.S'"'*oilm}fl AdvoL:ate. , VERSUS : nil [-{ K JAFDTAfiI ts R@ADclq,sT[ [u G cOR po RAT'[ C)N . " R[* S lDo)tiv D [E filtt"r Through: Mr.i Salil l(apoor, advocate with .Mr. Sanat l(a1roor, Advor'ate' --''--"--l 2011:DHC:14059-DB
Through : . VERSUS ;Ms.' Rashnri C.lrc.rpra, Advot:ate. ! Nll{K JAFDA.IV tsFS,OrADCrs\51f[IUG {EOIRF}ORn(-n'lC)ru ."R[xS[DO[\tE$:fN-r Through: Mr. palil l(apoor, advocarte with, Mr. Sanat l(.apoor, Advocate. CORAM s- HON',ts[-E MR. Jlt,STIAE A,.K" s[KR[; . F[C}NU'B[.IE [VIR.. JUSTICE M.[-, NffEh[TA .' l. Whether Reporters of Local irewspapers may be . allowed to see flreJudgmerrt? i , ?. To be referred to the Reporter or irot? *./ 3. Whether the Judgnrent should be.repor[ed ir-r tlre Digest? A.K. S[KB!,jj 1. Tlre respondent assessee wlrich is a pubric Broadcastirrg ' company of Japan (and, therefore, natui;aily a Non-Resident company) is treatecl as an assessee , ir: default under .the provisions of section 201 and 201 (1) and 201 (14) of ilre lnconre Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ,the Acti). ; 2, Before we spell out the e;<act nature' o,'default attributed to fhe assessee, we deem it apposite to recor_rnt.the facts in lcrief. The respondent, N'Hl( Japan is a government owned public broadcasting company of Japan lraving ne'fvs bureaus irr nrar-ry countries inclucling lndia. The responclent lral deputed expatriate rTA 164/201. 1, tTA 168/20rL,tTA L69l201 I,|TA 1 88/201 1. rTA r. 89/201-1,tTA 190/2011,tTA 186/2011 Page 3 of J.3 2011:DHC:14059-DB
.( employees from Japan for worlcing in its iffice in lrrclia. Tlre ; expatriatbs were receiving salary irr lnclialand a portion of salar-y and allowances in Japan. Under the law in ja;lan, ci'tizerrs/naticnals of Japan are liable to levy of an annual munr:ipal Citizerr -[a>< also referred to as:lnhabitant tax which is chargeJ on accourtt of beirrg an inhabitant of Japan. In case a .f apanesr: citizen is retrdering , . 'i services in an employment in Japan or abroird on a l-ransfer fror^n o Japan for whiclr he receives any salar5r in Jap:rrr, the citizerr tax for i a year in which he was in Japan on the first iJay of January of that year is required to be withheld by his employer 'l'rorr :;uclr employee's salary income in Japan and !aid directly [o tlre concerned Municipality. NHI(, was accordirrgly, withholding arrcl paying over to the concerned nrunicipal :alithority irr Japan, the citizen's tax levied under the Japanese la'v, from the salaries payable by it in Japan to its expatriate emplo,rees assigrred by it to its news'bureau in India. The citizen ta>< withlield fronr tlre salaries in accordance with the law in Japan was clained to be exclr-rdible and decluctible in the computation of sa:lary income of ilre employees liable to tax in India. , , under Section 20i (1) 1999 for the Finajicial ,l The AO passed order the Act on 16th December, 1998-99. The AO did not accept the clairns of and 201 (11\) of year 19BB-89 to- deductiorr and Page 4 of 3.3 ITA 164/20t 1,tTA 168/201l,tTA 169/201t,tTA 188/20L1, rTA 189/20r.1,tTA 190/201I,|TA 186/2011 :': 2011:DHC:14059-DB
l made additions by worlcing out interest taking into account (i) (ii) Citizen tax and (iii) Housing i; the difference; of additiorral tax arrd number of worl< days outside India norm. On appeal before the Commissioner of 'lncome Tax (Appeals) it was held that citizen tax is a statutory levy.in Japan on Jallanese citizens and that such tax constitutes an ove rricling clrar-ge on the salary income and therefore the same ha;l to be excluded in computation of taxable. income. On the iss;e of assessee beirrg held to be in default uls 2AL (1) ancj 201 (l \) and lror-rsing rrortl deduction, the matter was decided against tre assessee. The CIT (A) decided the appeals for 11 finarrcial )/ea rs i.e. FY 198ti-89 to 1998-99 by way of a common order dated 30 " March, Z}OJ-. Against the order of CIT (A,), 11 appeels were filed by ilie assessee before the ITAT on the grounds uf assessee lceing.irr default, housing norm deduction and. a,l additiorral grclurrcl regarding orders for FY l-988-89 to L994-95 beirrg barrecl by limitation. 11 appeals were filed by the Rev:enue before ilre trAT on issue of citizen tax deduction. All appeals were decided by a comnlon order dated 10th March, 20Q6., The appeats of ilre assessee were allowed and those of the Revr:nue were disnrissed. orders for FY 1988-89 to 1994-95 were he:d as invalid orr tlre ground of limitation and for FY 1995-96 to llgB-99 assessee was rTA 164/20L 1,tTA 1.68/20L1,tTA 169/20l"L,tTA 189/201 1, rTA 189/201-1,tTA 190/201 L,tTA 186/2011 Page 5 crf 13 2011:DHC:14059-DB
held not to be in default. order on citizen tax issue. ; The Tribunal uplre'l tlre Comrrrissiorrer's ; ' The flevenue filed 22 appeals in thisiCc,urt against tlre a!:ove mentioned orders of the ITAT, which wer€:dll disrnissed. Tlris Court vide orclers dated 30tr' Marclr, 2007 cirr 11 appeals by ilre : revenue on citizen tax issue dismissed the same basing its : decision on the judgment of the Suprenre Ccurt in the case o1'CIT' Vs. Sitaldtas Ttratt'ndas t19611 4L ITR 3e 7. Vide a separate orders dated 23'd April,2008, other 11 ,tppeals filecl by tlre Revenue on the issue of order under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) were dismissed on the ground tlrat aclion wal barred by limitation. The Revenue went in appeal before tlre s'rprerne court in two : batclres. ln the 1't batch, it agitated tlre citizen ta>< issure and in tlre 2nd batch, iL clrallengecl the issue of lirnii'ation. Tlre supreme ,. court vide orders dated 16th Marclr, z00B in the l't batch of appeals directed the Tribunal to corrsider tlre rrrattei- afresh irr accordance with law as regard citizen ta;: issue. lt woulcl be pertinent to quote the e><act direction given ;ry the supreme cour-t in the aforesaid order as much turns on ilrose directions:- "Without $oing into the merits r_rf the case, suffice it to state tlrat in the present case, in our view, the Commissioner (Ap1.,eals) ouglrt to have examined the scope of ttre Japatrese ITA 1 64/201 L, tTA 168/2011.,tTA 169/2o11,tTA 188/201,1, rTA 189/201L,tTA 190/2011,tTA 186/2011 I Page 6 of f.ii 2011:DHC:14059-DB
'{\1-/ I I law, namely, Citizerrs Individual tirlrabitarrt Ta>< Act. ln tlre letter of appointment issued, there is a reference to the *e;fl5.r Jhe relevant Clause reads as under: "Tour emoluments shall be s';bject to decluction of ta>ies as per: applicable laws and,tlre ta>< liability on host country (lndia) shall be horne by NH l(-J a pa n Broadcasti n g Corpbration. " Analysing the said Clause one,fi.;;3ds tlrat the emoluments paid by the assessee was subject to deduction of tax as per app,icable laws. Therefore, in our view, C',lmmissioner (Appeals) ouglrt to have exr;mined tlre provisions of Citizerrs Individual In'habitarrt Tax Act which is a Japanese law airc it ouglrt to have analysed the provisions t''F that la\ /, particularly, when it was require d to decide the question as to nature of the lt*vy being an overriding charge on the salary income, as stated hereinabove. The corrtroversv in the present case is that citizens tax i:; u itututory levy in Japan on the Japane:se citizerrs constituting an overriding chargt:. lf it is an overriding charge then of :ourse tlre Commissioner (Appeals) was rig;,rt in saying that it would not be an income, However, in o'ur View, since the provisions of the Act have not been exanrined, the nratter .reeds to be considered afresh by the Tribu rra l. Accordingly, we remit the nra .ter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in, accordance with law. We ex1:ress no opiniorr c,n the merits of the case." It is clear from the above view that issue at hand could 'i i that the Suprr.me Court was of the :.; not be clecid,.id without going into the specific provisions contained in Individual Inhabitant Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as'the Citize,ns Ta>< Act') of Japarr rTA I 64/201 1, tTA 168/201 l,tTA 169/201 l,tTA 188/201 1, ITA L 89/201 L,tTA 190/2011,tTA L86 120t1. Page 7 of f.ili Citizens: I 2011:DHC:14059-DB
l' ',' i and analyzing those provisions. Since the,' scope of aforesaid Japanese law was not examined, the Supren,e Court remittecl tlre case back to the Tribunal for fresh consicieiation "in accor-dance l:i with law" and to ascertain From the provisions of the citizens Tax Act as to whether the statutory levy in J.apan corrstitr;ted at'l ) overriding charge. The supreme court mada it clear that if it was an overriding charge, tlren it would not be an !ncome. 1'; 3. wlren the matter reached bacl< to Triburnal, the partie:; wer-e directed to place on record copy of the afore'said citizerrs Tax Act duly translated into Englislr vide orders dat.':d l6tr, March, 2009. Tlre Counsel for the assessee filed the copy,.of ilre aforesaid /\ct alongwith i'Ls Errglish translatiorr but clicl not t4ke the res;rorrsibility with respect to the authenticity of its Englislr i,ranslatiotn. In such ar I situation, the order dated 9tr' December, 20c.9 was passed by tlre Tribunal directing the Departmental Rep,resentative of flre Revenue to place on record tlre copies oF tlre ,!rovisions translertecl into English. Even after seelcing adjournrnerrtL,, the Revenue failecl ' to file the translated copy . of the relevant p,rovisions oF the s;ricl Act, This posed a dilemma in the mirrds of tjte Tribr-rnal. Crrr tlre I one hand, there was a direction given by tl-;e supreme Courl_ to decide the issue with reference to the proviiioris of ilre Citizens tT A I 6 4 I 20 1,r,tTA I 6 B/2 0 1 1, tTA 1 6 9/2 0 1 1, tTA 1 B Bl2 0 I 1, ITA 189/201L,tTA 190/2011,tTA 186/2011 Page B of L3 ft- \L} t ----l 2011:DHC:14059-DB
Tax Act and on the other hand, tlre Tribunal ttett helpless as it was t unable to proceed unless the authenticatedi copy of the Englislr translation version of the said Act was produced before it. The ,l Tribunal was conscious of the directions girien by the Suprr:me Court wl-rich is specifically taken note in par,r B of the impug;yrred order. However, two reasons prevailed in the: mind of the Tribunal which led to passing of the impugned orde'r iiismissing the appeal of the Revenue namelv: (i) As a lready poirrted od;: a bove, the department failecl to place on record tlre English \/ersion of tlre Citizerts Tax Act irr tlre absence of which it becam',: impossible for the Tribunal to decicle the is:;ue. Anotlrer aspect which heav,ily weiglr witlr the Tribunal was the subseo,uent decision of the Supreme Court itself whereby it had uplreld the quashing of thr: orders passed under Section 201 (1) airci 201(1A) of the Act. From this, tlre Tribunat concludecl tlrat it would be a fr"rtile exercise io deterrnirre the issue nanrely whether the i.-itizens Tax Act had an overriding charge,'over the salary income of the assessee or,nr"'t. I 4.. ln so far as first reason given by the T;'ibunal is concernecl, no doubt, the Tribunal felt helpless to deterrnine flre issue as per :1, direciion of the Supreme Court for no fault of its owt1. Normally, irr such a situation, it could have aslced the oti:rer party rramely tlre assessee to approaclr the supreme court f'rr ,variations of the t Y { (ii) I I ff A J.64 I 20n,lTA L 68/2 0L L,tTA L 6 9/2 0 I 1, tTA 1 88/20 L L, rTA 189/2011,tTA 190/20LL,tTA 186/2011- Page 9 of L!:l 2011:DHC:14059-DB
t( directions giverr by the Supreme Court in,its ordet' dated l.5tr' t; March, 2009 inasmuch as, the Tribunal is bot'rnd to carry outt :;ucl't directions. HoweveT, if the second grounb 'i,iuun by the Trilrunal has merit, there may not be any fault witlrlthe impuqned order passed by the Trib.unal, therel'ore, we pror eed to exanrilre tlre veracity of the second ground talcen by the Tr.'bunal. 5. As pointed out above, there were twc; batches of appreals ir, before the Supreme Court. 1't batclr was, concernecl rnritlr tlre Citizens Tax Act irr which directions datedi l ith Marclr, 2009 \,vere : ilassed by tlre Suprenre Court, as noted above. The 2"d bartclr of L appeals was concerned with tlre issue oF, limitation. i-\s noted above, the orders in respect of financial year 19BB-89 to 199,1.-95 ': were held to be invalid on tlre ground of limitation by tlre Tribr,rnal i ' which order was upheld by this Court and S,'pecial Leave Petitiorr was filed agairrst that order. This batclr 2f appeals wels still pending t: \-,' l, 6. In the meantime, the question of non deduction of ta;r at 'li( source on overseas paym'ents to e><patriate .'emptoyees camrl Ltll for corrsideration before the Supreme golrrt in the case of ' Catntnissi|riner of Xnaonna-n 'lfaN Vs. Eli Uii;;fy & Co, lpv't, ll-.[i:cjl. rTA 164/2011,t'rA 168/2011,tTA 169/201-1,tTA 1BB/201 1, ITA 189/20L1,rTA 190/201t,tTA 186/2011 Page 10 of :13 2011:DHC:14059-DB
i (2009) 372 tTR 22. These cases included tlrr'iappeal pertainirrg to the present assessee also. When the 2nd b.1tch of appeals came up for hearing lrefore the Supreme Court, iO'fing by the aforersaid orders dated'25th March, 2009 in Efli L.iWyt e Ca, (supra), ttre Supreme Court passed the following orderg, dated 2Oth JanLrary, 2010;- "Delay condoned. Leave granted. -J The following substantial questioni.of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil ;irppeals:- i "Whether the lnconre Ta;i' Appellate Tribunal was correct in lau,' in holding that the orders ;cassed unc',er Sections 201(1.) and 201(1,A) of the rncome Tax Act, 1961 are invalid and i barred by time having been passed i beyond a reasonable period," Having heard learned counsel o't botlr sicles, \/ve are of the view that, on i.the facts and cir,cumstances of these cases, tlrell quesLion on the poirrt of limitation formulated byiithe Inconre Tax Appellate Tribunal in the presenij cases neecl not be gone into for the sinrple realson that, at the relevant time, there was a debatti on the qurestion as to whether TpS was deduritible under the lncome Tax Act, 1961, on foreigi! salary paynrent as a component of the total si;rlary paid to an expatriatg working irr lndia? i 'r trls controversy came to an end vide judgment ofithis Court in the case of Commissioner of lncome'i-ax Vs. Eli Lilly 6r Co. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd., reported ,int (2009) 3I2 l-l-R 2235. The c4ues'tilot'! on lfimitati;clm has hrecclmle acaeiernic in thescl cases j 4lecauscl, e\/eti'tr assurm[ng that the Depiantrnnemrf.fisinflgtntf om tfile ITA 1 64/201 1, tTA 1 68/20L 1,tTA 169/2 01 1, tTA LB8/20 1 1-, ITA 1 89/2011,tTA r.90/20LL,tTA l-86/2011 Page 1L of 13 2011:DHC:14059-DB
I issule alf !fittmitatfiorn stillI tmei iiuestfiorm wounlcll anis'e whetftrer on such c'ieloataifole pournils;, the asscsssee (s) could be I declan"ed as assesseegs) irn denfault urndf ejn Sectflcarn 1192 read w['Eh Sectlom 20]L rof [-['le [',lcome T'arr l\cu, n961. Further, we are informed t tat the assessee have paid the differerrtial tax. Th$y lravd paid the interest and they further undert''tlce not to claim refund for the amounts paid. iBefore concluclitrg, we may also state tlrat., in Eli Lilly l& Co. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) vide paragraph 21.:, tlris Court lras clarified that the law laid down in rlre said case was only applicable to tlre provisions i:f Section 192 of he Income Tax Act, 1961. I i Leaving the question of law open on limitatiorr, ' these civil appeals filecl by I tne Departnrent are disposed of witlr no order as to co::ts," It is thus clear that the same Uench i tif the Supreme C.ourt I ,which issued direction on 16th March, 2009 passed the aForersaid order malcing it emphatically clear thai even the issute of limitation lrad become academic as the ur.;"rr"u could rrot be ti, declared as assessee in clefaurlt under Sec'tion I92 read witlr r! Section 201 of the Act. The 'l'allout of the Eforesaid orcler dated ,l 20th January, 2OIO is tlrat tlre Supreme'Cc;lLrt has lrelcl that tlre assessee for the assessnnent year-s in questir.in, cannot be treated as assessee in default. The cons;equence wbuld be to quaslr the proceeding initiated by tlre AO treating assessee to be in default under Section 201 (1) and 201- (1A) oi the Act. !l-:,- ITA 1 64/20 ]']., tTA 1 68/2 01 1-, tTA l-69/20 t 1,tTA l-88/20 1. 1, lrA 189/20r.1,rrn rso/zorr,rrA 186/201r I Page L2 of :13 I It I 2011:DHC:14059-DB
iii 7 . We, thus agree with the Tribunal that tre issue had becr:trre , academic in nature and tlrere was no reas,j:)n left to decide this is5ue. Tlris happened lrecause of tlre sub:lequent orcler of the l, Supreme Court itself. Tlris resulted as la ;CorseQUence of tlre orders passed by the Supreme Court, that tcio, in tlre case of tlris very assessee pertaining to the appeals of tire assessment years on the sarne question. We tlrus find no,mprit in.these appeals which are disinissed on this ground alone. i .l (rM"rL,, ",rJ -eL^-t,. nriltEti"illiA) D(GIil MAV n n, 20n lL sl<b .w G- I ,prt,4r1 (,i^*' "LU-->-- (A\.tK. S[[<R,lt] JJI'DGH 4 \ rTA 164/20r.1,tTA r.68/2011,tTA 169/201-L,tTA 188/201-1, ITA 189/2011,rTA 190/2011,rTA 186/2011 Page 13 of L!i 2011:DHC:14059-DB