Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 v. L. G. Electronics Inc Ltd

$~55 to 59 & 61 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 353/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. 56 + ITA 354/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. 57 + ITA 355/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. 58 + ITA 356/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC. Through: .....Respondent Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. 59 + ITA 381/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC. Through: .....Respondent Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. 61 + ITA 391/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms. Easha and Ms.Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel. versus L. G. ELECTRONICS INC. Through: .....Respondent Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Aowiteya Grover, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R 13.09.2024 % 1. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to the tax effect which would form subject matter of the instant appeals and all of those being below INR 1,00,00,000/-. 2.However, Mr. Kumar had contended that since the challenge was to an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’], tax effect cannot be quantified and the appeals would therefore be maintainable. 3.We, however, take note of the following pertinent observations as rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Pushp Steel [2023 SCC OnLine Del 8240] and which is extracted hereinbelow: “14. It is apparent from the above that the tax effect is in the vicinity of Rs. 2,20,100, which is less than the threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for filing an appeal in the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the Commissioner had set aside the assessment order with a direction to the assessee to make a fresh assessment, the tax effect could not be ascertained and the appeal was not covered under the Central Board of Direct Taxes circulars issued in this regard. The said contention is unpersuasive. The orders passed under section 263 of the Act arenot excluded from the purview of the circular issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes (CBDT) fixing the monetary limits for filingappeals. In the present case, although the Commissioner hadremanded the matter to the Assessing Officer, he had also broadlyquantified the income, which, according to the Commissioner, hadbeen underassessed. A meaningful reading of the order passed bythe Commissioner under section 263 of the Act clearly indicatesthat the net tax effect of setting aside the said order is far below themonetary limit specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 15. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the present appeal on the ground that it is belated; the tax effect is below the monetary limit; and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.” 4.In view of the aforesaid, these appeals shall stand dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. YASHWANT VARMA, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2024ns RAVINDER DUDEJA, J