Delhi High Court - Orders
Interglobe Enterprises Limited Now ... vs Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv on 26 August, 2021
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla
$~S-42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8177/2021
INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
NOW KNOWN AS INTERGLOBE
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Advocate.
versus
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 26.08.2021 CM APPL. 28241/2021 The application has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present application has been filed for rectification of the order dated 11th August, 2021.
In the present application it has been averred that the aforesaid order does not correctly reflect the appearance of the counsel for the petitioner/applicant.
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the order dated 11th August, 2021 shall now read as under:-
"#37 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8177/2021 INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:27.08.2021 22:36:38 Through Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Pulkit Verma, Advocates versus PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA ORDER % 11.08.2021 Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent to take up the application dated 16th February, 2018 filed by the Petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], for hearing and disposal in a time bound manner after considering the objections/contentions of the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the application under Section 264 of the Act was filed by the petitioner seeking revision of the assessment order dated 28th October, 2016 for assessment year 2014-15, whereby the income from interest on income tax refund of Rs. 1,51,67,868/- was taxed in the hands of the petitioner.
He points out that revision is sought on the short ground that the income from interest on income tax refund was held to be taxable in the hands of the petitioner in the assessment year 2012-13 by resorting to provisions of Section 147 of the Act. He submits that there can be no dispute that where the interest on income tax suffered tax in assessment year 2012- 13, same income ought to be expunged from tax net in the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2014-15. According to him, it is a basic cannon of tax jurisprudence that same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee twice/in two different assessment years.
He emphasises that as on date, the Department has collected double tax from the Petitioner, on the same income, in two Assessment Years i.e. 2012-13 & 2014-15. He contends that the inordinate delay in disposal of the Application is leading to grave prejudice to the Petitioner as the refund for the year under consideration is held up with the Department for nearly four years.
He also states that without prejudice to the foregoing, the Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:27.08.2021 22:36:38 has also filed the Appeal for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the appellate authorities and the outcome of the Application under Section 264 for AY 2014-15 will have a direct bearing on the Appellate proceedings of the said AYs and therefore a time bound disposal of the Application is imperative.
Issue notice.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, accepts notice. He prays for some time to file a counter-affidavit. But keeping in view the directions that we intend to pass, we are of the view that no counter-affidavit is required.
We are of the view that Section 264(6) of the Act casts an obligation on the Commissioner to dispose of the application within a period of one year from the date it is filed. Since in the present case the petitioner's application under Section 264 of the Act has not been decided for more than three and a half years, we dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's application under Section 264 of the Act within eight weeks by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 11, 2021 rn"
Application stands disposed of.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 26, 2021/TS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:27.08.2021 22:36:38