2022 (2) TMI 232 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowing the reimbursement of the amount paid to the petitioner's subsidiary abroad and the amount as increasing, as the business increases every year - HELD THAT - The issue arising out of these appeals appear to have a cascading effect on the tax liability of the petitioner for the succeeding years as well. Since the issues are of recurring nature, the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves an earlier attention for a final disposal. Therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, these writ petitions are disposed. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. These writ petitions are disposed by directing the respondent to consider the appeal and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus for expeditious consideration of appeals for Assessment years [2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16] under Section 250(6A) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to expedite the consideration of appeals for the Assessment years [2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16] under Section 250(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner highlighted that the disallowance of reimbursement paid to its subsidiary abroad by the Assessing Officer was causing an increasing financial burden due to the growing business. The petitioner emphasized the cascading effect of the pending proceedings on its tax liability. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner had a strong case on merits, which, if reviewed by the Appellate Commissioner, could potentially resolve the dispute promptly.

During the proceedings, both the counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent presented their arguments. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent requested time to file a counter, but assured that if a reasonable timeframe was set, the respondent would strive to pass orders based on merits. The petitioner had filed appeals for the relevant Assessment years on different dates in the past.

The High Court acknowledged that the issues arising from the appeals had a significant impact on the petitioner's tax liability for subsequent years. Recognizing the recurring nature of the issues, the Court deemed it necessary to prioritize the petitioner's appeals for early resolution. Without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Court disposed of the writ petitions.

Considering the arguments put forth by both parties, the Court directed the respondent to review and dispose of the appeals on their merits and in compliance with the law within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court made no ruling on costs in this matter.