M/S DABUR INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3794/2025HC DelhiDLHC01016118202526 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court was not persuaded to accept that any interference by the court was called for at the current stage. The court observed that the petitioner was at liberty to respond to the impugned show cause notice. The court further stated that the Assessing Officer (AO) shall consider the petitioner's response and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petition was disposed of with these observations. The court explicitly reserved all rights and contentions of the parties. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the court declined to adjudicate on the merits at this premature stage.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Dabur India Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a show cause notice dated March 18, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) in remand proceedings. These remand proceedings were initiated pursuant to an order dated March 29, 2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had already appealed the Section 263 order. The grievance in the present petition pertained to the ongoing proceedings by the ACIT and the apprehension of a demand being created without considering all contentions raised by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court should interfere at this stage with the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings, which were initiated based on an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the proceedings being conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to the Section 263 order were causing grievance, and they apprehended that a demand would be created without considering all their contentions. They sought intervention from the High Court at this stage. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the maintainability or merits of the writ petition. The revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3794/2025 and CM APPLs. 17694-95/2025

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. P. Rastogi, Mr. Kaushik, Mr. Shivam Malik, Mr. Ram Naresh, Mr. Shobit Jain, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(1), NEW DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Sabharwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

26.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a show cause notice dated 18.03.2025 [impugned notice] issued by the Assessing Officer [AO] in remand proceedings which have been conducted pursuant to an order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[the Act]. The petitioner has already appealed the said order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The petitioner’s grievance in the present petition relates to the proceedings being conducted by the AO pursuant to the said order. The petitioner also apprehends that the demand would be created as a result of the said proceedings without considering all contentions as raised by the petitioner. 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 01/07/2025 at 21:15:02

2.

We are not persuaded to accept that any interference by this court is called for at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the impugned notice, if not already done. 3. Needless to state that the learned AO shall consider the petitioner’s response and pass an appropriate order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 4. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. 5. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 26, 2025 K

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 01/07/2025 at 21:15:02

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →