Delhi High Court - Orders
Qualcomm India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 19 December, 2023
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16394/2023 & CM APPL. 65991/2023
QUALCOMM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidhinath Sengar, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Ms. Ashvini Kumar & Mr.
Rishabh Nangia, Standing Counsels.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 19.12.2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the final assessment order dated 29th November, 2023 issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, demand notice dated 29th November, 2023 and penalty notices dated 29th and 30th November, 2023 issued for the Assessment Year 2020-21 on the ground that they have been passed without following the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 144C read with Section 144B of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Impugned Final Assessment Order is without jurisdiction and bad in law inasmuch as petitioner having filed objections with Respondent No.3 within the time prescribed under Section 144C(2)(b)(i) read with Section 144B(1) 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 20/12/2023 at 23:05:44 (xxiv)(b)(I) of the Act, it was inadvertent of the Respondent to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Act before passing any final assessment order. He, however, candidly admits that the petitioner had inadvertently failed to intimate the respondent no.1/assessing officer regarding filing of the objections under Section 144(C)(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-revenue.
4. He states that under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the petitioner on receipt of the draft assessment order was statutorily required to file its objections before the Assessing Officer in addition to the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). He further submits that under Section 144C(3)(b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer was obligated to complete the assessment on the basis of the draft assessment order if no objections were received within the time period specified under Section 144C(2) of the Act i.e. within thirty days of the receipt of the draft order.
5. Recently, this Court has decided a similar controversy in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited vs. Assessment Centre & Ors., W.P.(C) No.15322/2023. In the said judgment, it has been held as under:-
"7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue at hand is no longer respondent integra as it has been decided by the Bombay High Court in Sulzer Pumps (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"6. In our view since petitioner had already filed a reference raising his objections to the DRP and Section 144C (4) of the Act requires the Assessing Officer to pass the final order including the view expressed by the DRP, we will be justified in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28th June, 2021 which is impugned in this petition. We would also observe that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted for passing the impugned order. At the same time, the Assessing 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 20/12/2023 at 23:05:44 Officer will also have benefit of considering the views of DRP while passing a fresh Assessment Order."
8. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid decision. Once the objections have been filed by the assessee against a draft assessment order within the time limit prescribed under Section 144(C)(b), the rest of the procedure should be followed as prescribed and the final assessment order ought to be passed by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the directions issued by the DRP.
9. This Court is further of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent-Department if the present petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order is set aside as Respondent-Department would be well within its rights to pass a fresh assessment order post the receipt of direction from the Respondent No.3-DRP."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, the impugned assessment order dated 29th November, 2023 as well as notices of demand and penalty dated 29th November, 2023 and 30th November, 2023 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondent-revenue to pass a fresh assessment order post the receipt of the direction from the DRP.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with applications stand disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 19, 2023/kr 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 20/12/2023 at 23:05:44