The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -15 v. Sanjay Duggal

$~49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65 & 66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 273/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus SANJAY DUGGAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates Goel, Advocates (51) + ITA 274/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus ARUN DUGGAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates Goel, Advocates (52) + ITA 275/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus SANJAY DUGGAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates Goel, Advocates (53) + ITA 276/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus SANJAY DUGGAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates (54) + ITA 277/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus SANJAY DUGGAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates (55) + ITA 280/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Advocate versus RATNA TALWAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates (57) + ITA 415/2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -15 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI versus RAJNISH TALWAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates (66) + ITA 515/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSCs, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates versus RAJNISH TALWAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocates CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 26.11.2024 -CM APPL. 5424/2023 in ITA 67/2023 (delay in refiling the appeal)-CM APPL. 46468/2023 in ITA 511/2023 (delay in refiling the appeal)-CM APPL. 46513/2023 in ITA 513/2023 (delay in refiling the appeal)-CM APPL. 46515/2023 in ITA 514/2023 (delay in refiling the appeal)-CM APPL. 46517/2023 in ITA 515/2023 (delay in refiling the appeal) 1.For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. 2.The applications are disposed of. ITA 273/2022, ITA 274/2022, ITA 275/2022, ITA 276/2022, ITA 277/2022, ITA 280/2022, ITA 415/2022, ITA 37/2023, ITA 67/2023, ITA 511/2023, ITA 513/2023, ITA 514/2023, ITA 515/2023 3.These appeals are required to be disposed of as the amount of tax involved is below the threshold limit as prescribed under the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 4.However, the learned counsel state that in cases where prosecution is launched, the same would be excluded from the scope of the said circular. 5.The CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024 in turn refers to Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024. Clause d of paragraph 3.1 of the said circular is relevant, and is set out below: 2.The applications are disposed of. ITA 273/2022, ITA 274/2022, ITA 275/2022, ITA 276/2022, ITA 277/2022, ITA 280/2022, ITA 415/2022, ITA 37/2023, ITA 67/2023, ITA 511/2023, ITA 513/2023, ITA 514/2023, ITA 515/2023 3.These appeals are required to be disposed of as the amount of tax involved is below the threshold limit as prescribed under the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 4.However, the learned counsel state that in cases where prosecution is launched, the same would be excluded from the scope of the said circular. 5.The CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024 in turn refers to Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024. Clause d of paragraph 3.1 of the said circular is relevant, and is set out below: “d. Where the case is one in which prosecution has been filed by the Department in the relevant case and the trial is pending in any Court or conviction order has been passed and the same has not been compounded, or...”the Department in the relevant case and the trial is pending in any Court or conviction order has been passed and the same has not been compounded, or...” 6.It is apparent from the above that the cases, where prosecution has been filed by the Department and the trial is pending in any Court, or a conviction order has been passed which has not been compounded, would be excluded from the purview of the said circular. However, in the present case, it is not disputed that the prosecutions have either been closed or quashed. Thus, the aforesaid exclusionary clause is not applicable. 7. In view of above, the present appeals are disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 26, 2024 ns SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any