Cece Petitione v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi And Another

Gurbax SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ad 9747.40 |2018.08.27 10:43CHANDIGARH. CWP? No. 19247 of 2018Date of decision: 3.08.2018| Marathon Electric India Private Limited cece Petitione Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and another ..-.Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL |HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate and Mr. Parshant Meharchandani, Advocate and Mr. Abhivadya Sood,Advocate for the petitioner.Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1,Prayer in this petition under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India is for a direction to respondent No.l- Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal’) to expeditiously dispose of theIncome Tax Appeal filed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle 1, Faridabad in relation to assessment year 2003-04pending before the Tribunal for the last ten years. |A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner-MarathonElectric India Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing ofFractional Horse Power Motors and laminations used in the Motors andtrading of pumps and Integral Horse Power Motors. Against the assessment order dated 23.03.2006 passed by respondent No.2 for assessment year2003-04, disallowing the petitioner the deduction under Section 10B andSeveral other deductions, the petitioner company got a completelyfavourable order dated 23.05.2008 from the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [CIT(A)]. Against the said order, respondent No.2 filed an appealbefore respondent No.1 in August, 2008. According to the petitioner, theSaid appeal is pending before the Tribunal for the last so many years on onepretext or the other. The petitioner asserts that, since 2008, several incometax appeals had been filed in its case before respondent No.1 in relation tothe assessment years 2004-05 to 2011-12 on account of the common issue ofsection 1OB of the Act. The said appeals are not being heard because theissue relating to Section 1OB of the Act is pending adjudication in earlierassessment year 2003-04. Further, an amount ofS|21 crores paid by thepetitioner is lying with respondent No.2. Moreover, there is an amount ofS|10.4 crores which is not covered by any stay order and the petitioner praysfor a direction to respondent No.2 for recovery of the said amount. In CWPNo. 1064 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.1allowing the application for filing additional grounds, this Court, vide orderdated 20.01.2017 had given directions to respondent No.1 to make sincereefforts for deciding the pending appeal expeditiously. Thus, the petitionerprays for a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal relating to theassessment year 2003-04 pending before respondent No.1. Hence, the instantpetition by the petitioner. — onWe have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that theappeal is already pending for 09.08.2018 before the Tribunal. Moreover, thepetitioner in the writ petition has not furnished any data containing the particulars with regard to the number of appeals which are pending beforethe Tribunal. Further, no material particulars have been furnished by thepetitioner on the basis of which it can be said that the Tribunal is takingunduly long time in deciding the appeal filed by respondent No.2. 5 In view of the above, we do not find any ground to issue anydirection as prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed (Ajay Kumar Mittal)JudgeAugust 3, 2013(Avneesh Jhingan)JudgeWhether speaking/reasoned Yes.Whether reportableYes (Ajay Kumar Mittal)Judge