Delhi High Court
Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 20 July, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~20 & 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 20.07.2023
+ W.P.(C) 17195/2022 & CM APPL. 54650/2022
DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Kavita Jha, Mr Anant Mann and
Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv.
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr Standing
Counsel with Mr Puneett Singhal and
Mr Shivendra Singh, Standing
Counsels.
+ W.P.(C) 17201/2022 & CM APPL. 54658/2022
DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Kavita Jha, Mr Anant Mann and
Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv.
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, Sr Standing
Counsel with Ms Pratishtha
Choudhary and Mr Aditya Gupta,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
JAIN
W.P.(C)Nos.17195/2022 & 17201/2022 Page 1 of 3
Signing Date:25.07.2023
11:50:52
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. These writ petitions concern Financial Year (FY) 2013-14.
2. The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 28.11.2022 passed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the demand notice of even date, i.e., 28.11.2022 issued under Section 156 of the Act.
3. It is not in dispute that insofar as the merits of the matter are concerned, i.e., whether the petitioner could be treated as an assessee-in- default under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act for its failure to deduct withholding tax qua External Development Charges (EDC) paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority [in short, "HUDA"], the coordinate bench has ruled in favour of the petitioner. 3.1. In this behalf, our attention is drawn to the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (OSD), 2023:DHC:2401-DB.
4. Given this circumstance, according to us, the same result should follow vis-a-vis the penalty order and the demand notice assailed in the instant writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the aforementioned penalty order and demand notice are quashed.
6. The writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
7. Consequently, pending interlocutory applications, i.e., CM No.54650/2022 [in W.P.(C)No.17195/2022] and CM No.54658/2022 [in W.P.(C)No.17201/2022] shall stand closed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN W.P.(C)Nos.17195/2022 & 17201/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:25.07.2023 11:50:528. Interim order dated 16.12.2022 passed in the above-captioned writ petitions shall stand vacated.
9. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J JULY 20, 2023 aj Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN W.P.(C)Nos.17195/2022 & 17201/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:25.07.2023 11:50:52