Full Text
Translation output
2018:DHC:8295-DB 15-7 $-55 to 57 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 80/2009
SIGMA FREDUDENBERG NOKPVT.LTD Appellant
Through: Mr.Saurav Sood and Mr.Shashank Sharma,Advocates.
ITA 80/2009
SIGMA FREDUDENBERG NOKPVT.LTD Appellant
Through: Mr.Saurav Sood and Mr.Shashank Sharma,Advocates.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX DELHI& ANR....Respondents
Through: Mr.Deepak Anand,Advocate, Jr.Standing Counselfor Mr.Zoheb
Hossain,Advocate,Sr.Standing Counsel.
Through: Mr.Deepak Anand,Advocate, Jr.Standing Counselfor Mr.Zoheb
Hossain,Advocate,Sr.Standing Counsel.
ITA 649/2009 ^
SIGMA FREUDENBERG NOK PVT.LTD Appellant
SIGMA FREUDENBERG NOK PVT.LTD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR Respondents Jr.Standing Counsel for Mr.Zoheb
ITA 1046/2010
SIGMA FREUDENBERG NOK PVT LTD Appellant
SIGMA FREUDENBERG NOK PVT LTD Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX Respondent Jr.Standing Counsel for Mr.Zoheb
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
24.04.2019
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
24.04.2019
C.M.APPL.18833/2019(for restoration)in ITA 80/2009
C.M.APPL.18834/2019(for restoration)in ITA 649/2009
C.M.APPL.18835/2019(for restoration^ in ITA 1046/2009
The appellant in these appeals seeks restoration in view ofthe order made th on 20 September,2018. These three appeals are for the years 2003-04,2004-05 and 2005-06. The Courthad recorded the appeiiant/assessee's statementthatsince theamountsinvolved weresmallandthetax effectevenless,they would notpress the appeals; at the same time,it had been indicated that in case ofchange in the circumstanceslater,itis openforthe appellantstorevivetheappeal.
It is urged on behalfofthe assessee that in the subsequent order, i.e. for
A.Y.2016-17, the Assessing Officer has again followed the reasoning, which persuaded him to attribute25% ofroyalty as the income assessable in the hands of the assessee which oughtto be broughtto tax. It is submitted thatthis prejudiced the assessee as the order of 20'" September, 2018 to that extent precludes the assesseefrom urging the question on the merits ofthe eiTor in attribution of25%.
This Court is ofthe opinion that the applicant/assessee's right to question the attribution of25%,and other matters connected with it, can be gone into for later years in the appeal proceedings,unhindered by the withdrawal ofits appeal recorded by the order dated 20'" September, 2018. In other words, the CIT(A) shall examine the merits of the assessee's contentions and not merely rest the reasoning on the basis ofthe said order ofthis Court,permitting withdrawal.
The applications are disposed ofin light ofthe above clarification.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J PRATEEK JALAN,J APRIL 24,2019/mr
The appellant in these appeals seeks restoration in view ofthe order made th on 20 September,2018. These three appeals are for the years 2003-04,2004-05 and 2005-06. The Courthad recorded the appeiiant/assessee's statementthatsince theamountsinvolved weresmallandthetax effectevenless,they would notpress the appeals; at the same time,it had been indicated that in case ofchange in the circumstanceslater,itis openforthe appellantstorevivetheappeal.
It is urged on behalfofthe assessee that in the subsequent order, i.e. for
A.Y.2016-17, the Assessing Officer has again followed the reasoning, which persuaded him to attribute25% ofroyalty as the income assessable in the hands of the assessee which oughtto be broughtto tax. It is submitted thatthis prejudiced the assessee as the order of 20'" September, 2018 to that extent precludes the assesseefrom urging the question on the merits ofthe eiTor in attribution of25%.
This Court is ofthe opinion that the applicant/assessee's right to question the attribution of25%,and other matters connected with it, can be gone into for later years in the appeal proceedings,unhindered by the withdrawal ofits appeal recorded by the order dated 20'" September, 2018. In other words, the CIT(A) shall examine the merits of the assessee's contentions and not merely rest the reasoning on the basis ofthe said order ofthis Court,permitting withdrawal.
The applications are disposed ofin light ofthe above clarification.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J PRATEEK JALAN,J APRIL 24,2019/mr
JUDGMENT