1. Background of the Appeals:
ITA 420/2023 & ITA 421/2023: These appeals related to AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 were brought before the court by the appellant/revenue against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
Prior Court Decision: The appeals were correctly contextualized with a prior court ruling from 2010, Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, that affected the way these appeals were to be handled.
2. Counsel Arguments and Legal Precedents:
Assessment Year 2017-18 Reference: In ITA No. 338/2023, concerning AY 2017-18, the court had closed the appeal with an option for the appellant/revenue to file a writ petition. This was cited as a precedent by the counsel for the parties.
Full Bench Judgment Reference: The reference to the Full Bench’s judgment of 06.08.2010 further framed the legal perspective, leading the court to a particular course of action.
3. Court’s Order and Direction:
Closure of Appeals: Following the precedent, the court closed the above-captioned appeals, granting the liberty to the appellant/revenue to prefer a writ petition.
Digital Signed Copy: The digitally signed copy of the order was recognized as an actionable document for the parties involved.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of CIT Vs L.G. Electronics Inc. Korea is noteworthy for its adherence to legal precedents and the procedural path it has laid for the appellant/revenue. By closing the appeals and allowing the filing of a writ petition, the court has both maintained consistency with its previous decisions and provided a clear direction for the future legal process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM No.39040/2023 in ITA No.420/2023 & CM No. 39068/2023 in ITA No. 421/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 60 days in re filing the appeals]
2. These are the applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals.
2.1 It is the appellant/revenue’s contention that there is a delay of 60 days in re-filing, qua the above-captioned appeals.
3. Mr Rohan Khare, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he has no objection if the court were to condone the delay in re-filing.
4. It is ordered accordingly.
5. The above-captioned applications are disposed of.
ITA 420/2023 & ITA 421/2023
6. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 [ITA 420/2021] and AY 2016-17 [ITA 421/2023].
7. Via these appeals, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 10.2022, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] in MA Nos. 276/Del/2022, SA No.128/Del/2022 & MA No. 277/Del/2022, SA No.129/Del/2022.
8. It is correctly pointed out by the counsel for the parties that in ITA No. 338/2023, which was preferred by the appellant/revenue in the respondent/assessee’s case concerning AY 2017-18, this Court had closed the appeal, and granted liberty to the appellant/revenue to file a writ petition, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 06.08.2010, passed in a bunch of appeals, including ITA 724/2010, titled Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
9. It is ordered accordingly, in the above-captioned appeals as well.
10. The above-captioned appeals are closed, with liberty to the appellant/revenue to prefer a writ petition.
11. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.