Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & ANr
[Citation -2020-LL-1119-12]

Citation 2020-LL-1119-12
Appellant Name Tata Teleservices Limited
Respondent Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & ANr.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/11/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags expenditure incurred • application for stay • demand of penalty • stay of recovery • coercive steps • excess amount • refund


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4790/2018 & CM APPL. 24395/2018 TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 4791/2018 & CM APPL. 24403/2018 TATA TELESERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 4792/2018 & CM APPL. 24797/2018 TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates. versus WP(C) 4790, 4791, 4792, 4948 & 4949 of 2018 Page 1 of 5 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 4948/2018 & CM APPL. 24796/2018 TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Advocate. AND + W.P.(C) 4949/2018 & CM APPL. 24396/2018 TATA TELESERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Advocate. % Date of Decision: 19th November, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA WP(C) 4790, 4791, 4792, 4948 & 4949 of 2018 Page 2 of 5 JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging orders issued by respondents whereby penalty demand of Rs.293,28,50,153/- for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were stayed subject to payment of 20% of said amount. Petitioner also sought to restrain respondents from initiating recovery of any demand of penalty imposed on petitioner for relevant assessment years. 3. On 01st June, 2018, this Court had passed following order:- Learned counsel for petitioner submits that quantum appeal is still pending before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Secondly, additions made in assessment proceedings subject matter of penalty orders are debatable. Primary addition relates to expenditure incurred, which has been treated as capital expenditure. He has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., [2010] 189 Taxman 322 (SC). petitioner/assessee, it is stated, is loss-making company and directions passed to pay 20% of penalty in instalments would have grave and serious consequences, as early decisions and adjudication is not in hands of petitioner alone. Subject to petitioner depositing Rs.I0,00,00,000/- in two equal instalments of Rs.5,00,00,000/- on or before 29th June, 2018 and 31st July, 2018, respectively, there would be stay of recovery by coercive steps till next date of hearing. deposit would be made with Income Tax Department. We clarify that application for stay has not been decided, and remains pending. Relist on 11th September, 2018. Pendency of this writ petition would not be ground to WP(C) 4790, 4791, 4792, 4948 & 4949 of 2018 Page 3 of 5 seek adjournments before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in proceedings pending before them. It will be open for petitioner and Revenue to make request for early disposal of proceedings. Dasti under signature of Court Master. 4. In pursuance to aforesaid order, petitioner deposited Rs.10 crores with Income Tax Department. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that during pendency of present proceedings and subsequent to order dated 01st June, 2018, entire penalty amounts for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 have been dropped and consequential appeal effect orders have been passed. 6. He states that what remains before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is appeals for AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and total cumulative penalty amount for these years is Rs.8,55,17,078/- and 20% of same works out to Rs.1,71,03,416/- only. He emphasizes that in view of aforesaid development, balance amount i.e. Rs.8,28,96,584/- should be refunded to petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for respondents states that appeals on merit (quantum) are pending before ITAT and if same is decided in favour of Revenue, demand would once again arise. 8. He further admits that penalty of Rs.72,87,99,676/- imposed with respect to assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 31st March, 2019 has been deleted vide order dated 05th February, 2020 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). WP(C) 4790, 4791, 4792, 4948 & 4949 of 2018 Page 4 of 5 9. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of opinion that even if present writ petition(s) are dismissed at this stage, maximum amount that petitioners can be directed to deposit pursuant to impugned orders and circulars issued by CBDT would be 20% of remaining demand which can only be Rs.1,71,03,416/-. 10. Keeping in view aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of view that there is no reasonable ground for revenue to hold excess amount i.e. Rs.8,28,96,584/- and same is directed to be released to petitioners within four weeks. 11. With aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and pending applications stand disposed of. 12. order be uploaded on website forthwith. Copy of order be also forwarded to learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2020 TS WP(C) 4790, 4791, 4792, 4948 & 4949 of 2018 Page 5 of 5 Tata Teleservices Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & ANr
Report Error