Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-3, Delhi v. M/S. Radico Nv Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd

$~40 *INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+ITA 794/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior StandingCounsel with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid,Advocate. versus M/S. RADICO NV DISTILLERIES MAHARASHTRA LTD ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate with Mr.Aniket D. Agrawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R%03.09.2019CM APPL. 39461/2019 (application for condonation of delay of 36 daysin re-filing the appeal) 1. By this application the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 36 days inre-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay iscondoned. 2. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. CM APPL. 39460/2019 (application for condonation of delay of 55 daysin filing the appeal) 3. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the Respondent accepts notice and hedoes not oppose the application. 4. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 794/2019 6. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the Respondent accepts notice. 7. Attention has been drawn to the order passed by this Court in a similar ITA No. 729/2019 on 06.08.2019 in relation to the Assessment Year 2009-10which reads as under: “CM APPL. 35302/2019 (delay) 1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filingthe appeal is condoned and the application is allowed. ITA 729/2019 2. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 17th December2018 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.4360/Del/2015 for theAssessment Year 2009-10. 3. The Revenue is aggrieved only to the extent that after notingthat during the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT, the orderof the Income Tax Settlement Commission (‘ITSC’) rejecting theAssessee’s settlement application had been set aside by this Courtby an order dated 9th October 2017 in WP (C) 3373 of 2013, theITAT instead of disposing of the appeals as having becomeinfructuous stated that it was allowing the appeals thereby settingaside the assessment orders as well as the orders of the CIT (A) inthe matter. 4. The Court finds no reason to entertain the appeal as it issufficient to clarify that the ITAT, having noted the subsequentdevelopments which resulted in the Assessee’s settlementapplication being revived before the ITSC should have simplydisposed of the orders as having become infructuous. It is clarifiedthat the further proceedings would depend on the outcome of theproceedings before the ITSC. It is further clarified that this Courthas not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions ofthe parties. 5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 8. The present appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2008-09 and we disposeof the same in terms of the order dated 06.08.2019 passed in ITA No.729/2019. VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2019ss SANJEEV NARULA, J