MAOWELL ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9163/2024HC DelhiDLHC01038880202413 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition should not be continued on its board as the issue appeared to be restricted to an incorrect computation. The Court noted that the final order of assessment determined the petitioner's taxable income to be 'Nil'. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) by way of a rectification application. The Court directed that if such an application is filed within three weeks from the date of the order, it should be examined and disposed of with due expedition within six weeks thereafter. All rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open. The Court did not decide the merits of the demand or the assessment itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maowell Electronics Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order determined the petitioner's taxable income to be 'Nil'. However, the computation order accompanying this assessment referred to a demand of Rs. 83,94,290/-. The High Court, in its previous order dated July 8, 2024, noted this discrepancy and requested the respondents to obtain appropriate instructions. On August 13, 2024, the Court was informed that while some instructions were provided, the issue was restricted to an apparent incorrect computation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand of Rs. 83,94,290/- raised in the computation order is valid when the final assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determined the taxable income to be 'Nil'? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of assessment provisions). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the demand raised in the computation order was inconsistent with the final assessment order which declared 'Nil' taxable income, indicating a potential error in the computation. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, acknowledged that instructions had been received from the Assessing Officer but indicated that the issue was limited to an incorrect computation. No specific legal arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9163/2024 MAOWELL ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocate versus ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SC & Ms. Priya Sarka, Jr. SC Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, SSC with Ms. Nishtha Mittal, Ms. Apurva Singh & Ms. K.S. Mary Jonet, Advocates for R-2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

13.08.2024 1. We take note of the limited grievance which stood raised in the writ petition and which stands duly encapsulated in our order of 08 July 2024 which reads as under:- “1. We take note of the contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner who draws our attention to the final order of assessment under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’] and which had assessed the taxable income to be “Nil”. The computation order, however, refers to a demand of Rs.83,94,290/-. 2. In view of the above, we request learned counsel for the respondents to obtain appropriate instructions. 3. Let the matter be called again on 13.08.2024.” 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 17/08/2024 at 14:29:35

2.

Although some instructions have been provided to Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by the concerned jurisdictional Assessing Officer [‘AO’], who is seated in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, we note that there would exist no justification for us continuing the writ petition on our board, since the issue stands restricted to what ex facie appears to be an incorrect computation. 3. This we note in light of the final order of assessment and on a perusal whereof we find that the petitioner was ultimately assessed at ‘Nil’ taxable income. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition, while according liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned AO by way of a rectification application. In the event that application is made within a period of three weeks from today, the same may duly be examined and disposed of with due expedition within a period of six weeks therefrom. 5. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. AUGUST 13, 2024/vp 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 17/08/2024 at 14:29:35

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →