LG Electronics India Private Limited v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors
[Citation -2017-LL-0808-5]

Citation 2017-LL-0808-5
Appellant Name LG Electronics India Private Limited
Respondent Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 08/08/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags limitation period • stay of demand of tax • imposition of penalty • recovery proceeding
Bot Summary: The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by which the Petitioner was directed to pay 20 of the tax demand of Rs. 32 crores amounting to Rs. 6.4 crores by 11th August, 2017 in order to get a stay of the demand up to 15th December, 2017 pending consideration of the Petitioner s appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) against the order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 15(1) 6778/2017 Page 1 of 3 AO), levying a penalty under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner-Assessee filed an appeal against the order before the CIT. The Petitioner also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Act seeking stay of the recovery proceedings. In the said application for stay, the Assessing Officer directed the Petitioner, by order dated 20th July 2017, to deposit 15 of the total tax demand in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. Aggrieved by the above order dated 20th July, 2017, the Petitioner went before the PCIT who, by the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2017, disposed of the application of the Petitioner by the following order sheet entry. The impugned order clearly makes no reference to the central issue in the W.P.(C) 6778/2017 Page 2 of 3 pending appeal or the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the order passed by the AO. The impugned order in short is without reasons and is therefore unsustainable in law. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued that the Petitioner s application will once again be heard by the PCIT on merits and without reference to the OM dated 31st July, 2017, which, on the face of it, appears to curtail his discretion. The PCIT will dispose of the application with a reasoned order not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No. 6778/2017 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocates. versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 08.08.2017 W.P. (C) No. 6778/2017 & C.M. APPL. 28225/2017 (stay) 1. Notice. 2. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Respondents. 3. challenge in this petition is to order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) by which Petitioner was directed to pay 20% of tax demand of Rs. 32 crores amounting to Rs. 6.4 crores by 11th August, 2017 in order to get stay of demand up to 15th December, 2017 pending consideration of Petitioner s appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] against order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 15(1) (hereafter Assessing Officer - W.P.(C) 6778/2017 Page 1 of 3 AO), levying penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). By said order AO raised demand of Rs. 32,00,07,958 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2007-08 and directed Petitioner to deposit said amount on or before 31st July, 2017. 4. Petitioner-Assessee filed appeal against order before CIT (A). Petitioner also filed application under Section 220(6) of Act seeking stay of recovery proceedings. In said application for stay, Assessing Officer ( AO ) directed Petitioner, by order dated 20th July 2017, to deposit 15% of total tax demand in terms of Office Memorandum ( OM ) dated 29th February, 2016. 5. contention of Petitioner is that limitation period, in terms of Section 275 (1) (a) of Act, had already expired. Aggrieved by above order dated 20th July, 2017, Petitioner went before PCIT who, by impugned order dated 2nd August, 2017, disposed of application of Petitioner by following order sheet entry. Present Sh. Vishal Rastogi, AGM of LG requested to make payment of 20% of tax demand of 32Cr. Amounting to 6.4 Cr. by 11.08.2017 to get stay of demand upto 15.12.2017 6. Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for Petitioner, has produced before this Court copy of OM dated 31st July, 2017 which modifies earlier OM, dated 29th February, 2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ), stating that standard rate for grant of stay had been revised from 15% to 20% of disputed demand. 7. impugned order clearly makes no reference to central issue in W.P.(C) 6778/2017 Page 2 of 3 pending appeal or grievance of Petitioner regarding order passed by AO. impugned order in short is without reasons and is therefore unsustainable in law. 8. For above reasons, impugned order is set aside and direction is issued that Petitioner s application will once again be heard by PCIT on merits and without reference to OM dated 31st July, 2017, which, on face of it, appears to curtail his discretion. PCIT will dispose of application with reasoned order not later than two weeks from date of receipt of this order. 9. CIT (A) shall also consider request of Petitioner for expeditious disposal of appeal. 10. petition and pending application are disposed of in above terms. 11. Copy of order be given dasti under signature of Court Master. S. MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 08, 2017 dk W.P.(C) 6778/2017 Page 3 of 3 LG Electronics India Private Limited v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax & Or
Report Error