Delhi High Court - Orders
Matrix Cellular International ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 2 February, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1346/2023 & CM Appl.5054/2023
MATRIX CELLULAR INTERNATIONAL (SERVICES) PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Manuj Sabharwal, Mr Nakul
Sehgal, Mr Rohit Gupta & Mr
Abhishek Anand, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 16(1),
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 02.02.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.5055/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1346/2023 & CM Appl.5054/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 27.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. 2.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
2.2 To be noted, the impugned notice and order concern Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019.
W.P.(C) 1346/2023 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.02.2023 22:15:09
3. The principal allegation against the petitioner is, that it had made remittances amounting to Rs. 3,90,60,090/- without subjecting it to withholding tax, and hence, the said amount is liable to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact, that proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act were initiated by the International Taxation Wing, which, however were closed upon receiving the petitioner‟s explanation as to the nature of the transaction.
5. It is the petitioner‟s case, that it is not in the business of telecasting services.
6. According to the petitioner, it simply purchases SIM cards of telecom operators located outside India and sells the same to persons who travel from India to foreign locations. As per the petitioner, the income accrued to foreign telecom operators is not taxable in India.
7. It is the petitioner‟s case, that given these circumstances, tax at source had not been deducted.
8. Thus, as noted above, the petitioner claims that this explanation was accepted in the 201(1)/201(1A) proceedings.
9. In support of this plea, our attention has been drawn by the counsel for the petitioner to Annexure P-6 and P-7. [See pages 44, 45 and 46].
10. Issue notice.
10.1 Mr Abhishek Maratha accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
11. Mr Maratha says that he will return with instructions.
W.P.(C) 1346/2023 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:08.02.2023 22:15:09
12. In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, counter- affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.
13. List the matter on 16.03.2023.
14. In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned notice and order till the next date of hearing.
15. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
FEBRUARY 2, 2023/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 1346/2023 page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:08.02.2023
22:15:09