SOJITZ ASIA PTE. LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)- 3, NEW DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16501/2025HC DelhiDLHC01083701202510 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the petitioner's submission that the Commissioner himself had indicated that the application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act needed to be decided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue stated that, as per instructions, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be decided as expeditiously as possible. The Court directed that the said application be decided within a period of eight weeks as an outer limit. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to seek such remedies as available against the decision on the application under Section 119(2)(B) if aggrieved, and also to challenge any other order as deemed appropriate in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of in light of these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sojitz Asia Pte. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated March 28, 2024, passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi. The petitioner also sought rectification of a tax demand raised by Respondent No. 3 via an order dated March 23, 2019, under Section 154 for assessment year 2016-17. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 4 to expedite the disposal of an application filed on July 31, 2024, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking permission to file a revised return for AY 2016-17 by condoning the delay. The High Court noted that the Commissioner had indicated the Section 119(2)(b) application should be decided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Revenue sought time to take instructions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi, erred in passing the order dated March 28, 2024, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if so, whether a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash it? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 264). 2. Whether the tax demand raised by Respondent No. 3 vide order dated March 23, 2019, under Section 154 of the Act for assessment year 2016-17 contains mistakes apparent from the record, and if so, whether such demand should be deleted? (Question of fact, concerning Section 154). 3. Whether the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, seeking permission to file a revised return by condoning delay for AY 2016-17, should be expedited by Respondent No. 4? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 119(2)(b)). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order under Section 264 was erroneous. They sought rectification of the Section 154 demand. Crucially, they requested expedition of their Section 119(2)(b) application for permission to file a revised return. The petitioner also pointed out that during a hearing, the CIT suggested the Section 119(2)(b) application should be decided by the CBDT. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue sought a week's time to take instructions on the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 154,Section 119(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16501/2025 CM APPL. 67630/2025 SOJITZ ASIA PTE. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra, Mr. Ankit Sahni and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)- 3, NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

10.11.2025 1. On the last date of hearing, we have passed the following order : 1. The petition has been filed with the following prayers : “a). issue a writ of and/or order and/or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed under section 264 of the Act (Annexure P- 1) by the Respondent no. 1. b.) issue a writ of and/or order and/or directions to Respondent No. 2 to rectify the mistakes apparent from the record and delete the tax demand raised by the Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23.03.2019 passed under section 154 of the Act (Annexure P - 9) for assessment year 2016-17; c.) in the alternative, for a direction to Respondent no. 4 to expedite disposal of the pending application dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P – 20) filed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, permission to file the revised return by condoning the delay for ay 2016–17, and to consider such return on merits, in the interest of justice and to prevent undue hardship.” 2. Mr. Vishal Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to page 411 of the paper-book 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 14/11/2025 at 12:17:00

contends that the show cause notice has been issued by the Commission of Income Tax International Taxation-03 Delhi calling upon the petitioner to represent as to why the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 119 (2)B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) not be rejected. He has also drawn our attention to page 427 to contend that a reply to the same has been filed by the petitioner but during the hearing, it transpired that the CIT himself expressed that the application under 119(2)B of the Act need to be decided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 3. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents/ Revenue seeks a week’s time to take instructions on this aspect. At his request, renotify on 10.11.2025.” 2. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel states that as per his instructions, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 119(2)b of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. 3. Appropriate shall be that the same be decided within a period of eight weeks, as an outer limit. 4. Liberty shall be with the petitioner to seek such remedy as available against the decision on the application under Section 119(2)B of the Act if aggrieved and also to challenge any other order as deem appropriate in accordance with law. 5. The petition is disposed of. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025 dd 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 14/11/2025 at 12:17:00

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 14/11/2025 at 12:17:00

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →