Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sojitz India Pvt. Ltd.through:none

$~4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 949/2016 & CM Nos. 48243-44/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III..... AppellantThrough:Mr.DileepShivpuri,Mr.SanjayKumar and Mr. Vikrant Maheshwari,Advocates. Versus SOJITZ INDIA PVT. LTD.Through:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%30.01.2017 ..... Respondent The present appeal is grossly time barred by 996 days; which is thetime taken by the Revenue to refile the appeal. The explanation given is thatthe official panel was changed and that there was an unusual pendency ofcases and other administrative difficulties. This can hardly be categorized as“sufficient cause” to justify condoning the delay. Even otherwise, the Courtis of the opinion that the question of law urged, is covered by the previousorder of this Court dated 10.01.2017, which was for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Court had in ITA No.28/2017 – decided on 10.01.2017, observed asfollows:- “The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) which followed the previous ordersfor assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Theassessee had for assessment years 2011-12 relied upon itstransfer pricing report which had indicated that no such transferpricing adjustments were necessary having regard to the data reported. The assessee carried out trading activities as well asindenting activities both in its AEs and unrelated parties. TheTransfer Pricing Officer after considering the materials onrecord determined the ALP having regard to the unrelatedbusinesses. In other words, for trading activities, the rate ofcommission applicable for indenting business was followed andvice versa. This approach was corrected by the DisputesResolution Panel (DRP) and affirmed by the ITAT. At the outset,it was pointed out that the ITAT’s impugned order is in tune withthe judgment of this Court in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT, 387 ITR 611. In view of this discussion, no substantial question of lawarises; the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” In view of the above position, the application for condonation of delayis, accordingly, dismissed. The appeal also fails on merits. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. JANUARY 30, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.