Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi -8 v. M/S Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd

\ I Signed By:RAM DATTSigning Date:09.10.2024 15:41Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing. $-45, 46 and 65 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1294/2018+IT4yli95/2018+IT4yli95/2018 +ITA 1305/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -8 Appellant Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standingcounsel with Mr.Deepak Anand,Jr.Standing Counsel for Revenue. versus M/S SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD. RespondentThrough Mr.PiyushKaushaik, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANHV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIORDER %20.11.2018 CM APPL. 48189/2018(delay in re-filing) in ITA 1294/2018CM APPL. 48190/2018(delay in re-filingi in ITA 1295/2018CM APPL. 48194/2018 (delay in re-filingi in ITA 1305/2018 Application for condonation of delay of 61, 67 and 67 days inre-filing of the appeals is not opposed. Applications are allowed. ITA 1294/2018. ITA 1295/2018 and ITA 1305/2018 These appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) in the case of M/s SistemaShyam Teleservices Ltd. (formerly Shyam Telelink Ltd.) pertain toAssessment Years 2008-09, 2007-Q8 and 2005-06.1.0 Ll^cIa2. First issue raised^relates to of taxation of the year purchase value/price of pre-paid cards is covered against the Revenue videdecision dated 15.11.2018 in ITA No.73/2013, ITA No.70/2013 andITA No. 1069/2017 relating to Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05and 2009-10. In view of the aforesaid position, no substantialquestion of law arises in these appeals on the first aspect. _ . 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted thatkccordancewith mr the order in^ITA No.73/2013, ITA No.70/2013 and ITANo. 1069/2017,r the Assessing Officer may be authorised to verify thequestion of revenue leakage as unutilized talk time on expired pre-paid card has to^taj^as revenue earned in the year in which the cardhad expired. 4. Counsel for the respondent-assessee, who appears on advancenotice, submits that they have no objection and the Assessing Officercan conduct the verification exercise while passing appeal effectorder. He accepts that similar directions were issued by the Tribunalin their order for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2009- 10. 5. We take the statement made by the counsel for the respondent-assessee on record. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer will beentitled to verify and ascertain that the respondent-assessee hadaccounted for the unutilized talk time on expired cards. 6. Another issue raised in the appeal pertaining to the AssessmentYear 2008-09 relates to disallowance of penal interest paid togovernment financial institutions. Assessing Officer held that penalinterest was in the nature of penalty and, therefore, not wholly andexclusively for purpose of business. The contention is fallacious and wrong. Penal interest was paid as there was delay in payment of theprincipal or interest amount before the due date. Penal interest wasnot paid and imposed for violation of the statutory provisions or byway of penalty for breach of law or prohibited offence. Penal interestwas paid as there was violation of the contractual term in view of nonpayment of principal interest within the stipulated time. There was noviolation of law. Penal interest was not imposed as the respondent-assessee had, committed an offence. 7. Recording the above, the appeals are dismissed. However therespondent- assessee would be bound by the concession recorded.There would be no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J NOVEMBER 20,2018/ndn/2/3 ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J $-23, 24 & 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITANos. 1294/2018, 1295/2018 & 1305/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -8 AppellantThrough Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounsel.Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounsel. versus M/S SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. Respondent CORAM: 7. Recording the above, the appeals are dismissed. However therespondent- assessee would be bound by the concession recorded.There would be no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J NOVEMBER 20,2018/ndn/2/3 ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J $-23, 24 & 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITANos. 1294/2018, 1295/2018 & 1305/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -8 AppellantThrough Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounsel.Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounsel. versus M/S SISTEMA SHYAM TELESERVICES LTD Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI % ORDER07.01.2019 Typographical en'ors have been noticed in the order 20'*^November, 2018 passed in the aforesaid ITAs. The same have beencorrected and initialled in today's date. Corrected order will beuploaded. C. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JANUARY 07,2019 NA ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.