C.I.T, New Delhi v. NHK Japan Corp.M/s Eli Lilly & Co.(I)Ld
[Citation -2014-LL-0811-36]
| Citation | 2014-LL-0811-36 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | C.I.T, New Delhi |
| Respondent Name | NHK Japan Corp.M/s Eli Lilly & Co.(I)Ld |
| Court | SUPREME COURT |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 11/08/2014 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Bot Summary: | UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER By the impugned order dated 11th May, 2011 in ITA No. 164, 168, 169, 188, 189/2011, 186 and 190/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi, the High Court observed as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.08.12 18:20:32 IST It is thus clear that the same Bench Reason: of the Supreme Court which issued direction on 16th March, 2009 passed the aforesaid order making it emphatically clear that even the issue of limitation had become academic as -2- the assessee could not be declared as assessee in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Act. The fallout of the aforesaid order dated 20th January, 2010 is that the Supreme Court has held that the assessee for the assessment years in question, cannot be treated as assessee in default. The consequence would be to quash the proceeding initiated by the AO treating the assessee to be in default under Section 201 and 201 of the Act. We, thus agree with the Tribunal that the issue had become academic in nature and there was no reason left to decide this issue. This happened because of the subsequent order of the Supreme Court itself. This resulted as a consequence of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, that too, in the case of this very assessee pertaining to the appeals of the assessment years on the same question. In view of such observation made by the High Court, we are not inclined to interefere with the impugned order. |