IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
|RADICO NV DISTILLERIES MAHARASHTRA LTD Vs DCIT [ITAT]|
ITA No. 757/2019
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI
M/s RADICO NV DISTILLERIES MAHARASHTRA LTD
S Muraliidhar & Talwant Singh, JJ
Dated: August 21, 2019
Appellant Rep by: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Adiba Mujahid & Ms Priya
Respondent Rep by: Mr Gaurav Jain with Mr Aniket D Agrawal & Ms Maneesha Sharma, Advs.
Income Tax – Full & true disclosure – Settlement commission
THE assessee-company’s premises were subjected to search proceedings during the relevant AY. Later, it received SCN initiating proceedings u/s 143A for the relevant AYs. The assessee then sought for settlement of its cases before the Settlement Commission, which was accepted and upon being asked to furnish a report, the jurisdictional CIT(A) filed a report raising no dispute in respect of payment of taxes and filing intimation before the AO. However, the CIT(A) raised issues regarding merits of the case and stated that the assessee had not made full disclosure of its income. Hence the Commission proceeded to reject the assessee’s application. The assessee filed writ petition, whereupon the High Court directed that assessment proceedings may continue. Pursuantly, the AO passed order u/s 153A, which were upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.
On appeal, the High Court holds that there is no reason to entertain the present appeal as the ITAT has clarified the subsequent developments which resulted in the assessee’s settlement application being revived before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and the further proceedings depends on the outcome of the proceedings before the ITSC.
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 17th December 2018 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.4360/Del/2015 = 2019-TIOL-341-ITAT-DEL for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. The Revenue is aggrieved only to the extent that after noting that during the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT, the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (‘ITSC’) rejecting the Assessee’s settlement application had been set aside by this Court by an order dated 9th October 2017 in WP (C) 3373 of 2013 = 2017-TIOL-2149-HC-DEL-IT, the ITAT instead of disposing of the appeals as having become infructuous stated that it was allowing the appeals thereby setting aside the assessment orders as well as the orders of the CIT (A) in the matter.
3. The Court finds no reason to entertain the appeal as it is sufficient to clarify that the ITAT, having noted the subsequent developments which resulted in the Assessee’s settlement application being revived before the ITSC should have simply disposed of the orders as having become infructuous. It is clarified that the further proceedings would depend on the outcome of the proceedings before the ITSC. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.