Delhi High Court - Orders
Moet Hennessy India Private Limited vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 9 January, 2019
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan
$~7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15/2019, C.M. APPL.46-47/2019
+ W.P.(C) 18/2019, C.M. APPL.52-53/2019
MOET HENNESSY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SPECIAL RANGE-6,
NEW DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Vikas Srivastava, Sh. Sumit Mangal
and Sh. Vikrant. A Maheshwari, Advocates, for
the petitioner.
Sh. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel, for the
Revenue.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 09.01.2019
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The controversy in these writ petitions is with respect to the denial of stay of demand for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 (of the total sum of `14,75,59,130/-). It is not in dispute that of the total demand, approximately `2.43 crores have been deposited by the assessee.
2. The records would show that for AY 2015-16, the Assessing Officer (AO), by order dated 09.03.2018 had granted stay upon deposit of 20% of the disputed amount. The relevant part of that order reads as follows:
"5. I have gone through the submissions made in your application. As you may be aware, CBDT issued guidelines for stay of demand at the First Appeal stage by way of a Press Release through Press Information Page 1 of 3 Bureau (Press Release dated 3rd March, 2016 available on web-site pib.nic.in) wherein it is stated that the Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand. Therefore, your application for stay of demand will be considered accordingly on payment of 20% of the disputed demand.
6. Considering the facts of your case, stay of balance demand till disposal of first appeal will be granted after payment of 20% of the disputed demand within two weeks from the date of this letter:
AY Clear disputed 20% of demand in
demand column (2)
(1) (2) (3)
2015-16 Rs.4,34,71,130 Rs.86,94,226
"
3. Inexplicably, without any change in status quo, the AO appears to have done a volte face and demanded balance amount by the impugned letter dated 16.11.2018. For AY 2014-15, (which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) 15/2019), however, the facts are slightly different; the petitioner has concededly deposited `1.56 crores as against the total demand for `10.4 crores.
4. In both the cases, the petitioner relies upon the authority of this Court in CIT v. Monto Motors Limited 2012 (19) Taxmann.com 57 (Del) and CIT v. Jubilant Foodworks Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (271) CTR 227.
The Court took note of previous decisions, including the Division Bench ruling in CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. 2009 (222) CTR (Del) 339 Page 2 of 3 as well as the Madras High Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-II v. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 1984 (3) CTR (Mad) 22. The Court was of the opinion that the nature of the expenditures towards advertisement, which were disallowed on the ground that it was excessive and, therefore, a capital one, was essentially revenue and that the Revenue's reasoning that it resulted in an enduring capital advantage is correct.
5. Prima face, this court is of the opinion that there is some merit in such view. Having regard to the submissions and the facts, we are of the opinion that the amounts deposit for these two years, i.e. `2.43 crores should be deemed sufficient and are in conformity with the OM dated 29.02.2016. The facts of this case are such that prima facie, they would be covered by para 4B(b). In these circumstances, the attachment of the amounts to the extent [`8,84,74,800/- for AY 2014-15 and `3,47,76,904/- for AY 2015-16] are hereby vacated.
6. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. It is open to the Revenue to contend on the merits of the arguments with respect to applicability or otherwise of the decisions cited by the assessee.
7. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 09, 2019/ajk Page 3 of 3