Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Tollways Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ITA 252 of 2023
Decided On : 30-05-2023
Condonation of Delay - Income Tax Appeal - The court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. The appeal concerned the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal sustained the deletion of the addition, stating that no exempt income was earned by the respondent/assessee during the period under consideration, and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not warranted. The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was accordingly closed.
Fact of the Case:
The application sought condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. The appeal concerned the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application seeking condonation of delay and closed the appeal, finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
Issues: Delay in re-filing the appeal, deletion of addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sustenance of deletion by the Tribunal, applicability of previous judgments, pending special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the issue was covered by previous judgments and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the closure of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed by the court, allowing the application seeking condonation of delay and finding no substantial question of law for consideration.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.22379/2023
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
1.1 According to the applicant/appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 55 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. Mr Kushagra Pandit, Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
3. Accordingly, the prayer made therein is allowed.
4. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 252/2023
5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015.
6. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. The Tribunal has sustained the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, "the Rules"].
6.1 To be noted, the amount of deletion which has been sustained is quantified at Rs.3,35,28,383/-. According to the Tribunal, no exempt income has been earned by the respondent/assessee during the period under consideration, and therefore, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was not warranted.
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 the 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 the 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's decision was influenced by the applicability of previous judgments and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration.
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 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.
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.
No substantial question of law arose for consideration in the case.
The court's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
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
