Principal Commissioner Of Incometax, Delhi-2 v. Casio India Co. Private Ltd

$~41 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 10524/2017 & CM Nos.43099-43100/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, DELHI-2, ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior StandingCounsel. versus CASIO INDIA CO. PRIVATE LTD. Through:None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHO R D E R % 27.11.2017 The impugned order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short‘ITAT’), extending the stay of recovery for six months, was passed on 4[th]November, 2016. More than one year has passed. We are not aware whetherthe appeal has been disposed of or is still pending. 2.The impugned order records that the respondent/assessee was not atfault and has not delayed the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition doesnot record facts and reasons for delay of disposal of the appeal. Copy of theadjournment orders passed by the ITAT are not on record. 3.The ITAT has relied upon judgment of this Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., (2015) 376ITR 87 (Del) striking down the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 as constitutionally invalid. 4.In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue notice in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.5.Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous. SANJIV KHANNA, J NOVEMBER 27, 2017/dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J