Latest Judgments

Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited v. Union of India and Others

Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.

(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)


 


Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited _________________________ Petitioner


 


v.


 


Union of India and Others _________________________ Respondent(s)


 


SLPs (C) Nos. 27963-66 of 2015†, decided on October 5, 2015


 


The Order of the court was delivered by


Order


 


1. Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.


 


2. The assessment in respect of Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was reopened by the Income Tax Department by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessments for these years were carried out afresh by the assessing officer imposing an additional tax demand of Rs. 64 lakhs. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as β€œthe CIT (Appeals)”]. The petitioner also moved an application for stay of the demand.


 


3. On this application, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed orders granting stay of interest and in respect of the tax amount, the petitioner was permitted to deposit the same in 16 instalments. However, the petitioner committed default in making payment of the very first instalment because of which the bank account of the petitioner was attached. The order was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order1.


 


4. It is stated at the Bar that up to now the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 27.7 lakhs in all. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main reason for reopening of the assessment for the aforesaid years by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was certain proceedings under the Central Excise Act. He has filed additional documents wherein a copy of the decision dated 16-9-20152, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as β€œCESTAT”) is annexed revealing that in appeal against the order-in-original of the Excise Department, CESTAT has set aside the said order and remitted the case back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.


 


5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent event, it would be appropriate if the petitioner approaches the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) once again with an application for stay bringing the aforesaid events to the notice of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We are confident that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall consider the application on its own merits and pass orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of filing the application.


 


6. The special leave petitions are disposed of.


 


β€”β€”β€”


 


† Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 6-5-2015 of the Jharkhand High Court in WP (T) No. 565 of 2015 with IAs Nos. 1197, 1835 and 2420 of 2015


 


1 Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Ltd. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 2103


 


2 Sidhi Vinayak Metcom Ltd. v. CCE and ST, Stay Petition No. SP-75899 of 2014, order dated 16-9-2015 (CESTAT)