Delhi High Court
Ongc Videsh Limited & Another vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 21 October, 2009
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12549/2009
Date of decision: 21st October, 2009
ONGC VIDESH LIMITED & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13 (1),
NEW DELHI & OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate
% CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
JUDGMENT
A.K.SIKRI, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation, a Government company and, therefore, it is
not in dispute that assessee is also a Government undertaking. It is
engaged in the business of exploration, development and production
of hydrocarbons outside India to augment the oil security of India.
2. In its return filed for the assessment year 2002-03, the
Assessing Officer made substantial additions by disallowing various
deductions made by the Petitioner, which amounted to more than
395.85 crore. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated
penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. The Petitioner preferred appeal against the assessment
order passed by the Assessing Officer. The said appeal was partly
allowed granting certain relief to the Petitioner herein. Not satisfied,
the Petitioner appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This
appeal was finally heard on 7th September, 2009 by the Tribunal and
the judgment has been reserved. However, till date order has not
been pronounced.
4. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer continued with the
penalty proceedings and passed orders dated 30th September, 2009
levying a penalty of Rs.114.19 crore on the Petitioner company based
on the additions confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in the quantum
appeal. This appeal was filed on 23rd April, 2009, however, that
appeal was not being heard so far.
5. The Petitioner also approached to the Respondent No.1
seeking stay of the demand of penalty imposed by the Assessing
Officer vide order dated 30th March, 2009. The Respondent No.1
passed order dated 24th April, 2009 staying the demand of penalty till
30th June, 2009 as neither the quantum of appeal was decided by the
Tribunal nor appeal against the penalty before the CIT (Appeal) filed
at time the Petitioner moved another application for extension of stay.
The stay was extended by Respondent No.1 till 30th September, 2009.
When the position remained the same as on 30th September, 2009 as
well, the Petitioner company moved another application before
Respondent No.1 on 23rd September, 2009 seeking extension of stay,
however, vide order dated 9th October, 2009, Respondent No.1 has
declined to grant further stay.
6. Mr. Aggarwal has produced a copy of this order as
communicated to the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax which inter alia reads as:-
"No further stay in this respect can not be granted. You
are requested to make the payment of the demand of
Rs.114.20 crore along with the interest u/s 220(2) of the
IT Act within 7 days and show me the proof of payment of
the same."
7. It is obvious that no reasons are given while declining the
request of the Petitioner to extend the stay. We may also note at this
stage that the Petitioner has filed an application before the Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax-13, New Delhi as well for grant of stay of
the order. This application was filed on 13th October, 2009.
8. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner is a
Government undertaking; the quantum appeal is pending decision by
the ITAT and the appeal against the penalty proceedings pending
before the CIT (A) have not been heard so far, had initially granted
stay of demand till 30th June, 2009 which was extended till 30th
September, 2009; while rejecting the request for further stay no
reason was assigned and the circumstances under which initially the
stay was granted continued to be the same even as of today, we are of
the opinion that till the application dated 13th October, 2009 filed by
the Petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax-13,
New Delhi is decided, no coercive steps be taken by the Respondents
for recovery of the amount due.
9. Further having regard to the fact that the appeal against
the penalty proceedings was filed by the Petitioner on 23 rd April,
2009, we feel that the same should also be decided expeditiously by
the CIT (A).
10. In case the application dated 13th October, 2009 preferred
by the Petitioner is rejected, reasons in support of such a decision
shall be given in the order. That order shall not be operative for a
period of 15 days to enable to the Petitioner to seek further remedies
as advised.
11. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
October 21, 2009
dn
