Delhi High Court - Orders
Ernst And Young U.S. Llp vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 May, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7578/2023 & CM Nos.29415-16/2023
ERNST AND YOUNG U.S. LLP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr Nikhil
Agarwal, Mr Arun Bhadauria and Mr
Nishank Vashistha, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... Respondent
Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr Standing
Counsel with Mr Shivansh B. Pandya,
Standing Counsel along with Mr
Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 29.05.2023 [Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request] CM No.29416/2023
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 7578/2023 & CM No.29415/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.
3. The Assessing Officer (AO) seeks to reopen the assessment proceedings on account of the petitioner having received remittances towards professional fee.
W.P.(C) 7578/2023 page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2023 at 23:58:20
4. According to Mr Kamal Sawhney, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, reassessment proceedings were triggered only on account of the fact that the initial information received was that the petitioner had not filed a return.
5. It is pointed out by Mr Sawhney that a return was filed and an order dated 27.07.2022 was passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], wherein the issue of remittances received by the petitioner from S.R. Batliboi & Associates LLP [hereafter referred to as "SRB"] was scrutinized.
6. It is Mr Sawhney's contention that the only addition that was made while passing the scrutiny assessment order dated 27.07.2022 concerns secondment charges that the petitioner had received from SRB. 6.1 It is, therefore, Mr Sawhney's contention that this is a case of clear change of opinion.
7. Mr Sawhney says that the remittances received on account of professional fee by the petitioner did not accrue or arise in India. It is contended that the petitioner is a tax resident of USA.
8. Accordingly, issue notice.
8.1 Mr Sunil Agarwal, learned standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
9. Mr Agarwal says that he will return with instructions. In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.
10. List the matter on 01.08.2023.
11. Given the fact that Mr Agarwal says that he would return with W.P.(C) 7578/2023 page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2023 at 23:58:20 instructions, the AO is injuncted from passing an assessment order till the next date of hearing.
12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 29, 2023 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 7578/2023 page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/10/2023 at 23:58:21