ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INDIA PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(1) DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16243/2024HC DelhiDLHC01084134202422 November 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the prayer made by the petitioner. The Court noted that the Revenue, on instructions, conceded to the petitioner's submission that the Assessing Officer had inadvertently missed an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, which was meant to give effect to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.10.2024 was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer. The Court disposed of the writ petition and pending applications. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order can be quashed and restored to the AO if the AO fails to give effect to a prior order or direction, as admitted by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rockwell Automation India Pvt Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the final assessment order dated 28.10.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The petitioner also challenged the consequential notice of demand issued under Section 156. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated on instructions that the Assessing Officer had inadvertently missed an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer giving effect to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C(5). The petitioner's counsel agreed with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order dated 28.10.2024, passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22, is liable to be quashed due to an inadvertent omission by the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the assessment order should be quashed as the Assessing Officer (AO) had inadvertently missed an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) giving effect to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, on instructions, stated that the prayer of the petitioner may be allowed, acknowledging the inadvertent omission by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 144C(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16243/2024 & CM APPL. 68337/2024, CM APPL.

68338/2024

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INDIA PVT LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Mr.

Abhishek Singhvi, Advocates

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 19(1) DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Mr.

Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav

Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh

Tiwari, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

22.11.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying as under: “a) a writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the final assessment order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and 144B of the Act along with notice of demand of even date issued under section 156 of the Act, in the case of the Petitioner for assessment year 2021-22 and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto...”

2.

At the outset, Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the Revenue 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 29/11/2024 at 13:00:00

states on instructions that the said prayer may be allowed as the Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) has inadvertently missed out an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer giving effect to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Mr. Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also contends that the present petition be disposed of by allowing the said prayer. Accordingly, it is so directed. 4. The assessment order dated 28.10.2024 is set aside. 5. The matter stands restored before the AO. 6. The present petition is disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2024 ns

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 29/11/2024 at 13:00:00

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →