W.p.(C)/1761/2017 Of Btc Industries Ltd v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr

$~37 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 1761/2017, CM APPL. 7812/2017 (Exemption)BTC INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr.Nitin Gulati, Mr. Vijay Verma, Advs.Nitin Gulati, Mr. Vijay Verma, Advs. Versus INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. St. Counsel. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%28.02.2017CM APPL. 7812/2017 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 1761/2017 1.Issue notice. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri accepts notice. 2.The relief claimed in these proceedings is a direction to theI.T.A.T. to fix an early date of hearing of the appeal preferred by thewrit petitioner. 3.The writ petitioner has suffered an adverse order in theassessment proceedings inasmuch as the A.O. held that it was liablefor not filing returns and also for the amount it was bound to pay.Since the deduction under Section 80 IC was not claimed within thetime stipulated, the A.O. proceeded to determine the liability. Thepetitioner was proceeded against, the appeal was rejected. During thependency of a further appeal before the ITAT, initially, an interimorder staying the demand recovery was given subject to payment of`10.00 lakhs.The petitioner, however, defaulted and consequently suffered vacation of stay. In the meanwhile the petitioner has beenproceeded with penally inasmuch as criminal proceedings have beenlaunched. 4.The petitioner’s explanation for the late filing of the return isthat its Director, who was authorised to digitally sign the return,expired and that authorisation could be obtained only on 04.10.2011;the next date, the return was filed. 5.The learned counsel for the revenue urges that whilst this mightbe an adequate explanation, there is no rationale why the petitionerdid not satisfy the tax liability in the first instance and thatconsequently it is not entitled to the relief. 6.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is ofthe opinion that it may not be appropriate to direct the ITAT to fix anearly date given that the appeal in this case was filed in 2016, but atthe same time the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner can bespared hardship during the pendency of its appeal before the ITAT, ifa suitable direction to balance the interest of all the parties is given. 7.Accordingly, the respondent is hereby directed not to proceedwith the criminal prosecution till a decision is rendered by the ITAT.8.The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.9.Order dasti.with the criminal prosecution till a decision is rendered by the ITAT.8.The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms.9.Order dasti. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J FEBRUARY 28, 2017/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J