M/S SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/8586/2022HC DelhiDLHC01021291202201 June 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated March 31, 2022, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file its additional reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) within two weeks. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy and that the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The reasoning for remand was based on the revenue's concession that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to file a reply and the order was not on merits, coupled with the petitioner's agreement to this course of action.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated March 15, 2022, an order dated March 31, 2022, and a notice dated March 31, 2022, all issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The revenue alleged that the petitioner's claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and required disallowance, considering it as income that had escaped assessment. The petitioner contended that an IGST Refund is a balance sheet item, not income chargeable to tax, and thus Section 147 was inapplicable. The petitioner also argued a violation of natural justice, as the show cause notice was sent to a wrong email address, and the impugned order lacked application of mind and recorded incorrect facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the IGST Refund, being a balance sheet item, can be considered as 'income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment' under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making the show cause notice dated March 15, 2022, illegal? - Assessee's contention: An IGST Refund is a balance sheet item and not income chargeable to tax. Therefore, the premise for issuing the notice under Section 147 is flawed. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the order dated March 31, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated March 31, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act, were passed/issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and with non-application of mind? - Assessee's contention: The petitioner did not have an opportunity to file a reply on merits as the show cause notice was received late (March 24, 2022) and sent to a wrong email address. The impugned order also records incorrect facts and lacks application of mind. - Revenue's contention: The revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, acknowledging the petitioner did not have an opportunity to file a reply and the order was not on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 8586/2022 Page 1 of 3 $~207 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8586/2022 & CM APPL.25860/2022 M/S SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Khare and Ms. Pratishtha Singh, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid and Mr. Karan Pandey, Advocates. % Date of Decision: 1st June, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), order dated 31st March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 31st March, 2022 issued under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of the “information” available with the Respondent No 1, it has been alleged that the Petitioner’s claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and hence, the said This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002184

W.P.(C) 8586/2022 Page 2 of 3 amount “is required to be disallowed”. He states that an IGST Refund, being a balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account and by no stretch of imagination can the same be termed as “income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment” and hence, in terms of Section 147 of the Act as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2022 is patently illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also states that the order dated 31st March, 2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 31st March, 2022 issued under section 148 of the Act have been passed/issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He states that the impugned order does not even mention that the petitioner had filed an application seeking an adjournment so as to enable it to file a reply on merits. 4. He emphasises that the petitioner became aware of the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2022 for the first time on 24th March, 2022 as it was sent to the wrong email address. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly states that the impugned order also reeks of non-application of mind since the said order records incorrect facts. 6. Issue notice. 7. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel on instructions states that as the Petitioner did not have the opportunity to file a reply and the order under Section 148A(d) was not on merits, the Respondent has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is agreeable to the same. He emphasises that the Petitioner shall raise all its submissions and contentions This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002184

W.P.(C) 8586/2022 Page 3 of 3 before the Assessing Officer by filing additional objections. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31st March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Petitioner is given liberty to file its additional reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within two weeks. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the matter by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and application stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JUNE 1, 2022 AS This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002184

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →