M/S UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)-14960/2021HC Delhi2021:DHC:440424 December 20213 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The petitioner, M/s UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all contentions and submissions before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Court granted this liberty. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy, and the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if aggrieved by the DRP's decision. The specific issue regarding the validity of the unsigned and undated transfer pricing order was not decided on merits by the High Court, as the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition to pursue remedies before the DRP.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the transfer pricing order passed under Section 92CA(3) for assessment year 2017-18 and a draft assessment order dated May 10, 2021. The petitioner argued that the impugned transfer pricing order, received via email on July 29, 2019, was invalid and void because it was unsigned and undated, and not digitally signed, contrary to CBDT Notifications SO 3264(E) and SO 3265(E) dated September 12, 2019, and Instruction No. 01/2018 dated February 12, 2018. The revenue contended that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner could raise these grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The petitioner countered that the DRP lacked jurisdiction. The revenue disputed this, citing High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the unsigned and undated transfer pricing order, not digitally signed, is invalid and void, in contravention of CBDT Notifications SO 3264(E) and SO 3265(E) dated September 12, 2019, and Instruction No. 01/2018 dated February 12, 2018 (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The impugned transfer pricing order is invalid and void as it was not digitally signed, violating mandatory CBDT notifications and instructions. The order received by email was unsigned and undated. Revenue's Contention: The writ petition is premature. The petitioner can raise all grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP has the competence and jurisdiction to decide these objections. Reliance was placed on Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 531 (Bom) and MESSE Dusseldorf India P. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer and Anr. (2010) 320 ITR 565 (Del).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 14960/2021 Page 1 of 3 $~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14960/2021 & CMs 47236-37/2021

M/S UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr.Nageswar Rao, Adv.

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr.SC.

Date of Decision: 24th December, 2021

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer pricing order passed under Section 92CA(3) in relation to assessment year 2017-18 and the draft assessment order dated 10 :

th 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the unsigned and undated impugned Transfer pricing order received by petitioner by way of email on 29th July, 2019 is invalid and void as impugned order is not digitally signed. He states that the impugned order is in direct contravention to Notifications issued vide SO 3264(E) and SO 3265(E) dated 12th September, 2019 as well as Instruction No.01/2018 dated 12th February, 2018 issued by CBDT which requires that all departmental orders, communications and notices being issued to the assessee through ‘e-proceeding’ facility should be May 2021. 2021:DHC:4404-DB

W.P. (C) 14960/2021 Page 2 of 3 digitally signed. 3. Issue notice. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that the present writ petition is premature as the petitioner can raise all the grievances raised in the present writ petition before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 4. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate emphasises that in fact the petitioner has raised the aforesaid grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 5. In rejoinder, Mr. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Disputes Resolution Panel has no jurisdiction to deal with the aforesaid objections/submissions. 6. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel, while disputing the submission made by Mr.Rao, submits that the Dispute Resolution Panel has the competence as well as the jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid objections. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgments passed by Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 361 ITR 531 (Bom) and MESSE Dusseldorf India P. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer and Anr. (2010) 320 ITR 565 (Del). 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Mr.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to raise all the contentions and submissions urged in the present writ petition before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. It is made clear that this Court has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. 2021:DHC:4404-DB

W.P. (C) 14960/2021 Page 3 of 3 9. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 24, 2021 RN 2021:DHC:4404-DB

More judgments on Section 92CA(3)

All 702 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →