SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that it was not necessary to examine the controversy regarding whether the Assessee had informed the AO about the pending objections before the DRP. The Court found it to be an admitted position that if an objection has been filed and is pending before the DRP, an assessment order passed in ignorance of such an objection is required to be set aside. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition. The notice under Section 221(1) of the Act, the impugned assessment order dated 22.05.2024, and the impugned notice under Section 156 of the Act were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without considering pending objections before the DRP is invalid and liable to be quashed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Suzuki Motor Corporation (Assessee), filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 22.05.2024 passed under Section 147 read with 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 22.05.2024 under Section 156 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The Assessee had filed its return for AY 2018-19 on 30.11.2018. Reassessment proceedings were initiated after a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 31.03.2022. The Assessee filed objections to the reopening, which were rejected by an order dated 28.04.2022 under Section 148A(d). A draft assessment order dated 28.03.2024 was passed, proposing to tax sales of spare parts and capital goods to associate entities as attributable to the Assessee's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 26.04.2024, which were pending, with a hearing scheduled for 27.11.2024. Despite pending objections, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice dated 18.07.2024 under Section 221(1) for a demand of ₹6,07,24,23,190/-. The Assessee discovered the impugned assessment order and notice were passed and uploaded.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when objections filed by the Assessee before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2018-19 were pending. Assessee's contention: The Assessee argued that the assessment order was passed prematurely and in ignorance of its pending objections before the DRP. It contended that no final assessment order could be raised while objections were under consideration by the DRP. The Assessee also stated it had informed the AO about filing objections, though this was contested. Revenue's contention: The Revenue submitted that the assessment order was passed because the Assessee had not furnished information regarding the filing of objections before the DRP to the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144C(3),Section 156,Section 143(1),Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 144C(1),Section 221(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 22.11.2024
Issue notice.
The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice.
The petitioner, Suzuki Motor Corporation (hereafter Assessee), has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the assessment order dated 22.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 147 read with 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 22.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Assessee had filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring an income of 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 07/12/2024 at 11:48:48 ₹45,57,35,07,705/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, thereafter, the Assessee received a notice dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the Assessee to show cause why its assessment for the AY 2018-19 not be reopened.
The Assessee filed objections to the said notice on 22.04.2022, however, the same was not accepted and the assessing officer (AO) passed an order dated 28.04.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act holding that it was a fit case for reopening the assessment for the AY 2018-19. The AO also issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for initiating the reassessment proceedings.
The Assessee states that the draft assessment order dated 28.03.2024 was passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act whereby the sales of spare parts and capital goods by the Assessee to its associate entities in India, were sought to be brought in the net of tax as attributable to the Assessee’s permanent establishment (PE) in India.
The Assessee filed its objection in the Form No. 35A dated 26.04.2024 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter the DRP). The said objections are pending and the Assessee received notice dated 02.11.2024 from the DRP scheduling the hearing on 27.11.2024. 8. Notwithstanding, the Assessee’s objection were pending before the DRP, the AO issued a notice dated 18.07.2024 under Section 221(1) of the Act indicating that a total demand of ₹6,07,24,23,190/- was pending for the AY 2018-19. According to the Assessee, no such demand could be raised as the final assessment order was not passed. However, on making further enquiries, it was found that the impugned order was passed by the AO and was uploaded on the portal along with the copy of impugned notice under 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 07/12/2024 at 11:48:48 Section 156 of the Act. The Assessee also contends that no real time alert was sent to its registered email ID.
Mr Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the previous AO has passed the assessment order as the information regarding filing of the objections before the DRP was not furnished by the Assessee to the AO.
This is stoutly contested by Mr Vohra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee. He also points out that in fact the Assessee had informed the AO regarding filing the objections before the DRP but he had not acknowledged the same.
It is not necessary for this court to examine this controversy as it is an admitted position that notwithstanding, the lack of information with the AO, if an objection has been filed and is pending before the DRP, the assessment order passed in ignorance of the said objection is required to be set aside.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The notice under Section 221(1) of the Act in respect of the AY 2018-19; the impugned order dated 22.05.2024; and the impugned notice under Section 156 of the Act are set aside.
The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2024 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 07/12/2024 at 11:48:48
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026
- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Ms R Ess Iron And Steel PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026