Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Delhi – Appellant
Versus
M/s Modern Info Technology Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ITA 250 of 2023
Decided On : 30-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax Appeal - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The appeal concerned the deletion of disallowance sustained by the Tribunal under Section 14A of the Act. The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The applications were filed seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The appeal concerned the deletion of disallowance sustained by the Tribunal under Section 14A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the condonation of delay and closed the appeal, finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Issues: Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed, and the condonation of delay was allowed.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.22364/2023
CM No.22365/2023
1. These are applications filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing and re- filing the appeal.
1.1 According to the applicant/appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 105 days in filing and 125 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Mr M.P. Rastogi, Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayers made in the applications.
3. Accordingly, the prayers made therein are allowed.
4. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 250/2023
5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015.
6. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. The only grievance of the appellant/revenue concerns the deletion of disallowance sustained by the Tribunal. The amount involved is Rs.3,12,87,693/-. According to the Tribunal, the respondent/assessee has not made any claim qua exempt income, and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not sustainable.
7. There is no dispute, that this issue is covered by a judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court dated 02.09.2015 passed in ITA 749/2014 titled Cheminvest Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI and the judgment passed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., (2017)80 taxmann.com 221 (Madras).
8. To be noted, one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J., was part of the bench in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central 1, Chennai v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.
9. Counsel for the appellant/revenue does not dispute the fact that special leave petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court via order dated 02.07.2018 which is reported as (2018)95 taxmann.com 250 (SC).
9.1 The order of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
"1. The Special Leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. "
10. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
11. It is, however, brought to our notice by counsel for the appellant/revenue that against other judgments, special leave petitions have been filed, which are pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. This fact is placed on record.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The court's decision was influenced by the applicability of previous judgments and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration.
The court's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The court's decision was influenced by the principle that when an issue is already settled by previous decisions, it does not warrant further consideration.
The court's decision was influenced by the specific judgments covering the issue and the absence of substantial questions of law for consideration.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial question of law and the specific provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
