Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Price Waterhouse & Co. Llp And Anr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors on 20 June, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
9 20.06. W.P. 7393 (W) of 2018
ns 2018
Price Waterhouse & Co. LLP and Anr.
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Indranil Nandi,
Mr. Sayak Konar .... For the petitioners.
Mr. R. N. Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria .... For the respondents.
The challenge in the present writ petition is directed towards a communication dated January 1, 2018 by which the respondent no.3 has invoked the provision of Section 92 CA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 92D thereof in respect of the assessment year 2015-2016.
Learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, similar issues as that of the present writ petition, were raised by the writ petitioners for the earlier assessment years. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated December 8, 2016. The Trial Court, by such judgment and order, had allowed the Transfer Pricing Officer to conduct the proceedings, in accordance with law. An appeal carried from that order was admitted. In such appeal, an interim order dated March 29, 2 2017 was passed. The Appeal Court has subsequently extended the interim order until further orders by an order dated March 29, 2017. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated August 24, 2017 passed in WP No. 21267(W) of 2017. He submits that, the Court had followed the Hon'ble Division Bench in such occasion. In such writ petition, it had granted an interim order. The present notice being directed against the subsequent financial year a similar interim order should be passed.
The revenue is represented.
Learned Advocate appearing for the revenue submits that, the issues raised in the writ petition are not similar as those raised in the earlier writ petition. Moreover, his client should be permitted to proceed with the present financial year.
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, it appears from the records that, the impugned notice is in respect of the subsequent financial year, than the financial year which is receiving the consideration of the Hon'ble Appeal Court. By the judgment and order dated March 29, 2017, the Hon'ble Appeal Court has directed stay till the disposal 3 of the appeal.
Prima facie, it appears that, the issues raised in the writ petition are same as that raised by the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petitions including that of WP No.21267(W) of 2017. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to stay the proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer until further orders as done by the Hon'ble Appeal Court.
It would be appropriate to permit the respondents to file affidavits.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List the writ petition under the heading "Hearing" six weeks hence.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )