M S SUPRATIK HOSPITALI PVT LTD FORMERLY M S SUPRATIK STOCK SECURITIES PVT LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2401/2025HC DelhiDLHC01009430202505 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the submission made by the Revenue. The Revenue, through its counsel Mr. Sunil Agarwal, stated that the Assessing Officer had put a stay on any further recovery of demand from the ITBA system on February 17, 2025. The Assessing Officer's communication indicated that detailed factual verification was required to resolve the issues raised in the writ petition, as there were variances between the assessee's submissions and the information available in the ITD system. The AO also noted the unavailability of relevant case records due to jurisdiction changes. In light of this, the Revenue requested twelve weeks to enable the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders leading to a refund with appropriate interest in accordance with the law. The petitioner's counsel agreed to dispose of the petition based on these submissions. No specific finding was given on the merits of the maintainability or the substantive claims, as the matter was settled by the undertaking given by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Supratik Hospitali Pvt. Ltd. (formerly M/s Supratik Stock Securities Pvt. Ltd.), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition sought to give effect to an ITAT order dated August 31, 2017, which deleted a tax demand of ₹43,82,110/- and a penalty of ₹43,82,110/- under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. It also sought to quash orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) for AYs 2012-13 to 2024-25, and to adjust refunds due to the petitioner against the deleted demand and penalty. The petitioner further prayed for the refund of amounts appropriated by the respondents, aggregating to ₹41,83,587/-. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, considering the availability of alternative remedies. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the ITAT order dated 31.08.2017 giving effect to the deletion of tax and penalty demands for AY 2006-07, and consequently, to the refund of amounts appropriated by the Revenue in subsequent AYs. Assessee's Contention: The assessee seeks to implement the ITAT's decision by deleting the demands for AY 2006-07 and recovering amounts already adjusted by the Revenue from subsequent refunds. The petitioner relies on the ITAT order dated 31.08.2017. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue initially raised a plea of maintainability. However, the Assessing Officer, through communication dated 03.03.2025, indicated that detailed factual verification is needed due to variances between the assessee's submissions and ITD system information. The AO also noted that case records are not available as jurisdiction has traversed through several AOs. Consequently, recovery of demand was stayed on 17.02.2025. The Revenue sought twelve weeks to pass appropriate orders leading to refund with interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2401/2025, CM APPL. 11315/2025, CM APPL. 11316/2025, CM APPL. 11317/2025, CM APPL. 11318/2025, CM APPL. 20410/2025 M S SUPRATIK HOSPITALI PVT LTD FORMERLY M S SUPRATIK STOCK SECURITIES PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Ms. Surbhi Srivastava, Ms. Garima Singh and Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocates

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC, Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSC, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC, Mr Utkarsh Tiwari Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

05.08.2025

1.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers: “I. To give appeal effect to the Orders dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by Ld. ITAT, G Bench, Delhi Benches in ITA No.3031/ Del/2010, & ITA No.2720/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2006-07 in the case of Petitioner of M/s Supratik Stock & Securities (P) Ltd. now renamed as M/s Supratik Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., & to delete the demand of ₹43,82,110/- of tax for A.Y.2006-07 & demand of ₹43,82,110/- of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2006-07. II. To set aside & quash the Orders dated 16.04.2014 for A.Y. 2012- 13, dated 26.03.2015 for A.Y. 2013-14, dated 14.03.2016 of A.Y. 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 12/08/2025 at 13:05:49

2014-15, dated 29.03.2016 of A.Y. 2015-16, dated 04.04.2017 of A.Y. 2016-17, dated 01.08.2018 of A.Y. 2017-18, dated 07.08.2019 of A.Y. 2018-19, dated 13.05.2021 of A.Y. 2020-21, dated 04.11. 2022 of A.Y. 2022-23, dated 18.12.2023 of A.Y. 2023-24 & dated 24.10.2024 of A.Y. 2024-25 of Ld. A.O. passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer to adjust the Refund assessed & due to Petitioner against the deleted demand of tax, & penalty (Annexure P-2 to P-12). III. To stop recovering demand of ₹43,82,110/- of tax, & ₹43,82,110/- of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2006-07 deleted by the Ld. ITAT. IV. To refund the amount appropriated by the Respondents by way of adjusting Refunds assessed & due to the Petitioner in subsequent years being A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15, A.Y. 2015- 16, A.Y. 2016-17, A.Y. 2017-18, A.Y. 2018-19, A.Y. 2020-21, A.Y. 2022-23, A.Y. 2023-24 & A.Y. 2024-25 to Petitioner to the extent of ₹32,89,930/- & interest ₹8,90,657/-aggregating to ₹41,83,587 /-…”

2.

Though, Mr. Sunil Agarwal has taken plea of maintainability of this petition before this Court, by drawing our attention to the order passed by this Court on 25.02.2025, he also states that he has written instructions from the Assessing Officer based in Kolkata dated 03.03.2025 received by him through E-Mail wherein Para 2.7 reads as under: “In view of the several variances as apparent from submissions of the assessee company in writ petition with the information as available in ITD system, detailed factual verification is needed to resolve the issues raised in the writ petition. Further the relevant case records are not available in this office as the jurisdiction over the assessee company has been traversed through several Assessing Officers of different Wards & Circles of Delhi & Kolkata during the period from 2009 to 2020. This office has received the email dated 23.12.2024 from the assessee company regarding this matter. Subsequently, this office has put stay on any further recovery of demand of ITBA system on 17.02.2025.”

3.

He states that in view of the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the said communication, twelve weeks be granted to enable the assessing officer pass appropriate orders leading to refund with appropriate interest in accordance with law. 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 12/08/2025 at 13:05:49

4.

On this submission of Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Mr. S.K. Srivastava submits that the petition be disposed of by taking his submission on record. 5. It is ordered accordingly.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 05, 2025 tg

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 12/08/2025 at 13:05:49

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →