The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 09 May 2022 · 2022:DHC:1809-DB

Manmohan; Dinesh Kumar Sharma

ITA 145/2022 & ITA 146/2022

2022:DHC:1809-DB

tax appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals against ITAT orders, affirming the Supreme Court's interpretation that stay orders under Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act can only be vacated if delay in appeal disposal is attributable to the assessee.

Full Text

ITA 145/2022 & ITA 146/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 145/2022
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Ms. Mansie Jain, Advocates.

VERSUS

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav, Advocates.

ITA 146/2022
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Ms. Mansie Jain, Advocates.

VERSUS

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav, Advocates.
Date of Decision: 09th May, 2022

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral)

1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 8: th November, 2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in SA No.1005/Del/2019 in ITA No. 6949/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and in SA No.1004/Del/2019 in ITA No. 901/Del/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13, respectively. 2022:DHC:1809-DB ITA 145/2022 & ITA 146/2022

2. Admittedly, the earlier appeals filed by the appellant-Revenue on similar grounds were dismissed by this Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Pepsi Foods (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, [2015] 376 ITR 87 (Delhi).

3. Recently, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal, being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd., [2021] 126 taxmann.com 69 (SC), filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“25. The law laid down by the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) is correct. Resultantly, the judgments of the various High Courts which follow the aforesaid declaration of law are also correct. Consequently, the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act will now be read without the word "even" and the words "is not" after the words "delay in disposing of the appeal". Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee. The appeals of the revenue are, therefore, dismissed.” (emphasis supplied)

4. In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 9, 2022 AS

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation