M/S HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7099/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01107700201821 March 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI,MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no reason to interfere with the Section 263 notice at that stage. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's apprehension that the Principal Commissioner might have pre-judged the issue based on the language of the show cause notice, but stated that if the petitioner's contentions were otherwise found to be correct, the Principal Commissioner would be bound to drop the proceedings. The Court clarified that the petitioner could raise the contention regarding the alleged erroneous observation about the admission of facts during assessment proceedings within the Section 263 proceedings. Furthermore, the Court kept open the petitioner's contention that the issue should be decided based on the legal position existing on 04.01.2016, and expressed no views on this specific point. The Court also clarified that if a jurisdictional issue arose, the petitioner could file a separate writ petition challenging the order passed on the show cause notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice issued under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This notice proposed to revise the assessment order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the DCIT, Circle 2(1), Gurgaon, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The original assessment order had determined the income at approximately Rs. 599 crores, an increase from the returned income of Rs. 562 crores. The notice indicated that the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, specifically concerning whether 25% of royalty payments should be treated as capital expenditure and disallowed. The notice referenced judgments from the Supreme Court in Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is valid, considering the petitioner's apprehension that the Principal Commissioner has already formed a concluded opinion against the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Principal Commissioner had wrongly interpreted the cited judgments and that the language of the show cause notice indicated a pre-determined view against the assessee, suggesting a lack of objective consideration. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the interpretation of the judgments. However, the issuance of the notice itself implies the revenue's position that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to its interests.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7099 of 2018 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21.03.2018 M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner .. S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral): The petitioner has challenged a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling upon it to show cause why the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle 2(1), Gurgaon, dated 04.01.2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 should not be revised under section 263 of the Act.

2.

In the facts of this case, we see no reason to interfere with the notice at least at this stage. It is sufficient to note only a few aspects. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 04.01.2016 at an income of about Rs.599 crores against a returned income of about Rs.562 crores. The notice further states as follows. The assessment records were examined and on a perusal thereof discrepancies were noticed and it was observed that the assessing order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. One of the main issues was whether an amount of 25% of the royalty should be treated as capital expenditure and, Parkash Chand 2018.03.23 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7099-2018 therefore, disallowed. The order refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 395 ITR 713 (SC) and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

3.

The petitioner contends that the Principal Commissioner has wrongly interpreted these judgments. We see no reason to accept the contention that the Principal Commissioner has made up his mind and will not take a view in favour of the assessee even if he is required to do so. The language of the show cause notice was relied upon in support of this apprehension. Indeed, some of the observations would indicate the same. However, that is only a manner in which it has been put. We have no doubt that if the petitioner’s contention is otherwise found to be correct the Principal Commissioner will drop the proceedings. In fact, in that event, he would be bound to do so.

4.

The contention that it was wrongly observed that it was admitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings that the facts of the assessee’s case and the facts of the said judgment are identical can also be raised in the proceedings relating to the show cause notice.

5.

To leave no room for grievance, it is clarified that if a jurisdictional issue does in fact arise the petitioner can always challenge even the order on the show cause notice by filing a separate writ petition. Even the contention that the issue ought to be decided as per the legal position existing on 04.01.2016 is kept open. We express no views on the issue. Parkash Chand 2018.03.23 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7099-2018

6.

The petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 21.03.2018 parkash NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Parkash Chand 2018.03.23 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →