Full Text
33.
34.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 877/2015
COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX-IV Annellant
Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, S;;ior'stanIg Counse, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
Counseland MrShikhar Garg,Advocate.
, Respondent
Through:MrPranjal Srivastava,Advocate.
COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX-IV Appellant
Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing
Respondent
Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg,Advocate.
Page I of5 2015:DHC:11754-DB
35.
Counseland MrShikhar Garg,Advocate
DANGSONHOTEL&RESTAURANTSPVT.
LTD, I X. ^ Respondent
LTD, 1 ,. ^ Respondent AND ITA 877/20157otherconnectedmatters
Page2of5 > 37.
COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX-IV Appellant Counsel and Mr Shikhar Garg,Advocate.
LTD. Respondent
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
ORDER
1. Allowed,subjectto alljust 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. ITA 877/2015 7other connected matters Page3of[5] V\ (; ITA 877 to 882/2015
4. The short issue that arises for consideration in these appeals from the common order dated 13^ March,2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA Nos.4438/Del/2012, 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671/Del/2012 for Assessment Years('AY')2001-02to 2006-07 is whether theITAT was rightin holding thatthe limitation under Section 275(1)(a)of the Act would begin from 19 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 ofthe 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 17'*^ September, 2010 and, thereafter, a certified copy ofthe order ofthe ITAT wasreceived bythe concerned CIT-IV on 30^ September,2010.
6. It is not possible for the Court to accept the plea ofthe Revenue that the ITA 877/2015 7other connected matters Page4of[5] period of limitation as far as Section 275(l)(a) of the Act is concerned should, in the above circumstances, commence not from 19th July 2010 when the order ofthe 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)ofthe Act.To permit such a plea ofthe Revenue will tantamountto reading into Section 275(1)(a)ofthe 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 oflaw arises. The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J NOVEMBER 18,2015 MK ITA 877/2015 7other connected matters Page 5of[5]