Lg Electronics India Private Limited v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

$~33 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P. (C) No. 6778/2017 LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThrough :Mr. Deepak Chopra and Mr. AmitShrivastava, Advocates. versus % PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough :Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior StandingCounsel. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARMS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R08.08.2017 W.P. (C) No. 6778/2017 & C.M. APPL. 28225/2017 (stay)1. Notice. 2. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice onbehalf of the Respondents. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2[nd]August, 2017 passedby the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) by which thePetitioner was directed to pay 20% of the tax demand of Rs. 32 croresamounting to Rs. 6.4 crores by 11[th]August, 2017 in order to get a stay of thedemand up to 15[th]December, 2017 pending consideration of the Petitioner’sappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’]againsttheorderdated30[th]June,2017passedbytheAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax-Circle 15(1) (hereafter Assessing Officer - W.P.(C) 6778/2017 Page 1 of 3 AO), levying a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘Act’). By the said order the AO raised a demand of Rs. 32,00,07,958for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08 and directed the Petitioner todeposit the said amount on or before 31[st]July, 2017. 4. The Petitioner-Assessee filed an appeal against the order before the CIT(A). The Petitioner also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Actseeking stay of the recovery proceedings. In the said application for stay, theAssessing Officer (‘AO’) directed the Petitioner, by order dated 20[th]July2017, to deposit 15% of the total tax demand in terms of the OfficeMemorandum (‘OM’) dated 29[th]February, 2016. 5. The contention of the Petitioner is that the limitation period, in terms ofSection 275 (1) (a) of the Act, had already expired. Aggrieved by the aboveorder dated 20[th]July, 2017, the Petitioner went before the PCIT who, by theimpugned order dated 2[nd]August, 2017, disposed of the application of thePetitioner by the following order sheet entry. “Present Sh. Vishal Rastogi, AGM of LG requested to make paymentof 20% of the tax demand of 32Cr. Amounting to 6.4 Cr. by11.08.2017 to get stay of demand upto 15.12.2017” 6. Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has producedbefore this Court a copy of OM dated 31[st]July, 2017 which modifies theearlier OM, dated 29[th]February, 2016, issued by the Central Board of DirectTaxes (‘CBDT’), stating that standard rate for grant of stay had been revisedfrom 15% to 20% of the disputed demand. 7. The impugned order clearly makes no reference to the central issue in the W.P.(C) 6778/2017 pending appeal or the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the order passedby the AO. The impugned order in short is without reasons and is thereforeunsustainable in law. 8. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and a direction isissued that the Petitioner’s application will once again be heard by the PCITon merits and without reference to the OM dated 31[st]July, 2017, which, onthe face of it, appears to curtail his discretion. The PCIT will dispose of theapplication with a reasoned order not later than two weeks from the date ofreceipt of this order. 9. The CIT (A) shall also consider the request of the Petitioner for anexpeditious disposal of the appeal. 10. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the aboveterms. 11. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master. S. MURALIDHAR, J. AUGUST 08, 2017dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.