Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appeals before us raise an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Income Tax Act”).

3. The facts in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. [now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd] (Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.30284 of 2015) may be set out as being illustrative of the facts in all the appeals before us. The Respondent-assessee is an Indian company incorporated on 24.02.1989 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of concentrates, fruit juices, processing of rice and trading of goods for exports. The assessee is a group company of the multi-national Pepsico Inc., a company incorporated and registered in the United States of America. The assessee-company merged with Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2010, in terms of a scheme of arrangement duly approved by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. On 30.09.2008, a return of income was filed for the assessment year 2008-2009 declaring a total income of INR 92,54,89,822. A final assessment order was passed on 19.10.2012 which was adverse to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) on 29.04.2013. On 31.05.2013, a stay of the operation of the order of the assessing officer was granted by the Tribunal for a period of six months. This stay was extended till 08.01.2014 and continued being extended until 28.05.2014. Since the period of 365 days as provided in Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act was to end on 30.05.2014 beyond which no further extension could be granted, the assessee, apprehending coercive action from the Revenue, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on 21.05.2014 challenging the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. By a judgment dated 19.05.2015, the Delhi High Court struck down that part of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act which did not permit the extension of a stay order beyond 365 days even if the assessee was not responsible for delay in hearing the appeal. It is this judgment and several other judgments from various High Courts that have been challenged by the revenue in these appeals.

13. The impugned judgment in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 dealt with the challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2008. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, after setting out the Bombay High Court judgment in Narang Overseas (supra), then referred to the previous judgment of the Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki (supra) and held:

“12. From the above extract, it is evident that the Division Bench was not called upon and did not examine the constitutional validity of the provisos to Section 254(2A) of the said Act and left the issue open. It is only on a plain reading of the provisos, as they existed, that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had no power to extend stay beyond a period of 365 days from the date of the first order of stay but that an assessee could file a writ petition in the High Court asking for stay even beyond the said period of 365 days and the High Court had the power and jurisdiction to grant stay and issue directions to the Tribunal and that Section 254(2A) did not prohibit/bar the High Court from issuing appropriate directions, including grant of stay of recovery. A similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Jethmal Faujimal Soni (supra). But that decision was also rendered on a plain meaning of the provisos, as they stood. There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the said Act after the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2008. No decision of any High Court has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties, wherein the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the said Act has been examined.” [at page 96-97] After referring to this Court’s judgment in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v.

25. The law laid down by the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) is correct. Resultantly, the judgments of the various High Courts which follow the aforesaid declaration of law are also correct. Consequently, the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act will now be read without the word “even” and the words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal”. Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee. The appeals of the revenue are, therefore, dismissed.