Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0727-3]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0727-3 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent Name | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 27/07/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | retrospective amendment • good and sufficient cause • assessee deemed in default • recovery of tax • levy of interest • short-deduction of tax at source |
| Bot Summary: | Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that Sections 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were penal in nature and that sufficient cause was a relevant consideration while holding the assessee as an assessee in default 2. In case question No.1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2001 to Section 201 of the Income Tax Act constitutes a sufficient cause for purposes of determining whether the assessee was or was not in default 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Eli Lilly Company 312 ITR 225 in which it was held that interest under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is a compensatory measure for withholding the tax which ought to have gone to the exchequer. It has further been observed that the object underlying Section 201(1) of the Act is to recover the tax. The impugned order of the ITAT which holds that Section 201 and 201 of the Act are 'penal' in nature is plainly contrary to the above decision of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Question above is answered in negative i.e. in favour of Revenue and against the Assessee. Since the Question is answered in the negative, Question does not arise for consideration. |