Delhi High Court - Orders
Fis Payment Solutions And Services ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 1 on 6 April, 2021
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9063/2020
FIS PAYMENT SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 1
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 06.04.2021
1. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue, informs us that between the time when hearing was held before this Court, on 18.03.2021, and today, the Assessing Officer has passed an assessment order.
1.1. Accordingly, a copy of the said assessment order dated 04.04.2021 has been placed before us. This copy has also been made available to Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioner-assessee. Mr. Bhatia says that as per the assessment order, the refund amount determined qua the relevant assessment year, i.e., AY 2018-2019 has been pegged at Rs.72,12,16,834/-.
W.P.(C) 9063/2020 1/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM Signing Date:07.04.2021 18:16:031.2. Mr. Bhatia, fairly concedes that while determining the said amount, the refund claimed by the petitioner-assessee in the instant petition has been adjusted, contrary to the direction of this Court, due to the manner in which the software has been programmed.
2. Mr. Vohra, on the other hand, says that there is an error in the computation sheet appended to the assessment order. Mr. Vohra points out that in the computation sheet appended to the assessment order, the total income of the assessee has been shown as Rs.82,63,80,862/-. According to Mr. Vohra, this figure is, clearly, erroneous as in the body of the assessment order, the assessee's assessed income has been shown as Rs.45,89,84,750/-. 2.1. Furthermore, Mr. Vohra says that a perusal of paragraph 5 of the assessment order would show that an addition of Rs.22,30,00,000/- has been made. This addition, according to Mr. Vohra, has been made in respect of expenditure incurred towards Employee Stock Ownership Plan (in short 'ESOP'); albeit contrary to the judgment of this Court rendered in CIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 107 of 2015, dated 18.08.2015]. 2.2 It is Mr. Vohra's contention that although the respondent-revenue has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the said judgement, there is no stay operating qua the judgment.
2.3 It is in this backdrop, Mr. Vohra says that respondent-revenue needs to pass a revised assessment order. It is also Mr. Vohra's contention that the respondent-revenue ought not to have made the addition insofar as the expenditure incurred towards ESOP was concerned, and thereby, enhanced the assessed income.
W.P.(C) 9063/2020 2/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM Signing Date:07.04.2021 18:16:033. Mr. Bhatia says that he will convey to the concerned officer, the errors which have, apparently, crept in the assessment order. 3.1 It is also Mr. Bhatia's contention that in any event, the amount refundable under the assessment order dated 04.04.2021 i.e., Rs.72,12,16,834/- will be remitted to the petitioner-assessee within the next ten days.
4. List the captioned matter on 23.04.2021.
5. For the purposes of good order and record, the Registry will scan and upload the assessment order dated 04.04.2021, including the computation sheet appended to it and handed over to us by the counsel for the parties.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J APRIL 6, 2021/pa Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 9063/2020 3/3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM Signing Date:07.04.2021 18:16:03