Laxmi Infobahn One Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

[ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 28047 OF 2022 Betwee n: 1 Laxmi lnfobahn One Prrvate Limited, Having its address at 8-2-682, Laxmi Cut"i C"ntr". Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500036 Telangana' ln'dla Represented by its Authoriz6d Signatory Mr. N Srinivas GARCorporationPrivateLimited'Havingitsadd.ressa.t8-2-682,LaxmiC.yber d;;ir","ii;r;' r.to.tz arn,"ra Hills, Hv?eraba-d.- 500036 Telangana' lndia Represented by its Authori2ed Signatory Mr. N Srinivas ...PETITIONERS Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2(2), Signature Towers Kondapur, Hyderabad. Assistant Director of lncome Tax, Centralized Processing centre, Bengaluru 2 AND 1. 2 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the Petitioners to file revised returns and direct the transfer of TDS to a tune of Rs.3,1 2,25,9521-trom the account of Petitioner No.2 to Petitioner No.1 in accordance with the scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench at Hyderabad in CP(CAA)No.36l23ol{D}t2o2landinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoflncome Tax Act, 1961 .

lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners to file revised returns for the Assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22 pursuant to the scheme of arrangement being approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bench at Hyderabad in CP(CAA)No.36 I 230 IHDB 12021 . Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. R.S.ASSOCIA'TES Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. K.MAMATHA, SC FOR lT DEPT., The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSTTY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY W.P.No.28O47 of 2o22 JUDGMENT:lret I tou'bt( .\t t .tu\ttL.t. p.SAM KOSHy) lleard learr-red Scr.rior Counsel for the petitioners and Ms K. Mamatha, learncd Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the lncome Ta-x Department 2. The instant writ petitiol-l has been filed seeking for the reliel of permitting the pctitioners to file rcvised returns for the assessment years 2o2o-21 and, 2o2r-22. Tl.re reason for seeking of such a rerief was refusal to accept the revised returns by the respondents as this system does not accept such reviscd returns being filed. Moreover, time for filing of revised returns was also lapsed. 3. The cla-rm of the petitioners was on the basis of the scheme of arrangement being approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short "NCLTJ, bench at Hyderabad in Cp(CAAlNo.36 /23O IHDB/2O21, decided on o l. 10.202 I and *,herein the effective date of the scheme coming into force from 01.04.2O19. It is a case where petitioner No.2_Company i.e., GAR Corporation Private Limited got demerged urith certain units of petitioner No. l-Company i.e., Laxmi infobahn One private Limited. On account of the said amalgamation proceedings pending before the authorities concerned, the T.D.s. certificates in favour of petitiorsr No.2- Company could not be claimed by petitioner No.2-Company ,rrd tnt .a-. was reflected in the revised returns submitted by petitroner No. l_Company

2 altcr thc order of thc N.C.L.T. was passcd on O 1. 10.202 I . Hor.r'ever, for thc rcasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, thc same \\as not accepted by the respondcnts. This has led to thc filing of thc prescnt u'rit petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appcaring for the pctitioncrs submits that the issuc involved in the prcsent writ petition is no longer res rntegra as the matter stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supremc Court in the case of Dalmio Power Lbnited u. Assistcrnt Comtnissioner oJ Income Tax, Circle-I Trichgr and this High Court :rlso under similar sct of facts had allowed thc W.P.No.6892 of 2023, dccided on 11.O4.2023, in the case of M/s TSI Business Parks Hgderabad Pvt Ltd u. Deputg Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2I, setting aside the order o[ respondent No.1 therein, dated 11.OI.2O23 and directed him to take on bo:rrd the revised return of income filed by the petitioner. 5. So far as the legal position is concerned, the same ltas not been conflicted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, particularly as regards the decision rendercd by the Supreme Court in tlre case of Dalmla,. Power Limited's ccse (supra) and also the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this l{igh Court in M/s TSI Eusiness Parks Hgderabad. Put Ltd.'s case (suprd). Learned Senior Starding Counsel for the Department furthcr submits that since the issue in this present *rit petition is squarely covered by the aforesard lwo decisions, appropriate orders can be passed in the instant casc also. t 12O 191112Taxmann.co m 252 (sC) ;:l

l 6. The Division Bench of this High Court rn W.P.No.6892 of 2023 in \ paragraph Nos.10 to 13 has obsen,ed the following:- "10. ln Dolmio Power Limited (supro), the issue before the Supreme Court wos whethu the lncome fox Deportment ought to hove permitted the ossessee componies to file the revised income tox return Ior the assessment yeor 2016-2017 ofter expiry of the due dote prescribed under SecQon 139(5) of the Act on dccount of pendency of proceedngs Jor omolgomotion of the ossessee componies with other componies under Sections 230 to 232 ol the Componies Act, 2013. 11. We moy mention thot in the oforesdid cose, the scheme of omolgomotion wos opproved ond sonctioned by the NCLT ofter the due dote of filing the revised return for the ossessment yeor 2016-2017. Supreme Court refeffed to the prowsions of Sectlon 139(5) oJ the Act ond opined that the soid provision would not be opplicoble in o cose where revised return could not be Jiled on occount ol the time token to gront sonction to the scheme of omolgomotion by NCLT. Section 139(5) ol the Act deols with filing of revised rcturn within o period of one yeor upon discovery of on omission or wrong stotement mode in the initiol return of income. Supreme Court also referred to Section 170 of the Act ond held thot it is incumbent upon the lncome Tox Deportment to ossess the totol income of the successor compony in respect ol the previous ossessment yeor olter the dote of succession. lncome Tox Deportment is requited to ossess the income oJ the successAt compony ofter tdking into dccount the revised return filed ofter omolgomdtion of the compony. ln the focts ond circumstonces of thot cose, Supreme Court directed the lncome Tox Depottment to receive the revised teturn of income for the ossessment year 2016-2017 liled by the oppellonts therein and to complete the ossessment for the soid ossessment yeor ofter tdking into occount the scheme oJ omalgomotion os sonctioned by the NCLT. 12. Upon thorough considerotion, we ore of the view thot the decision of the Supreme Court in Dolmio Power Limited (supro) is squ(irely opplicoble to the focts ol the present cose. lt is becouse ol circumstonces beyond the control ofthe petitioner thotthe revised return could notbefiled belore the due dote. However, under Section 170 of the Act, lncome Tax Deportment is obligoted to ossess the totol income of the ossessee of the previous ossessme n t yeor post-om o lg o mo t i on. 13. Thot being the position, we set oside the order oI respondent No-7 doted 11.01.2023 ond direct him to toke on bodrd, the revised rcturn of income liled by the petitioner lor the ossessment yeor 2027-2022 on 23.12.2022 ond thereofter to process the same in dccordonce with low." 7. Given the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has already in the similar set of facts has taken a decision allowing the writ petition and ( ( permitting the petitioner to file revrsed income, we are of the considered

4 opinion that thc prcscnt writ petition also stands squarclv c()\,cred I)1.tltc aforesaid two decisions of thc Hon'trle Suprenre court as also r;y that of the Division Bench of this High Court. 8. At this juncture, Iearned Scnior Counscl appcaring for thc petitioncrs submits that the revised return income has already been subrnittcd. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, thc prcscnt writ petition stands a.llowed a,d the petitioners are hereby pcrmitted to firc r he fr.csh prrvsiczrr copy of reviscd returns within a pcriod of ten days from today. Let thc samc be done and the authorities may process the same as cxpeditiously as possible, prefcrably, within ar outcr limit of six months fronr the clate of rcceipt of copy of this order. Further, while taking a decision in thc casc of thc pctitioners, the authorities concerned may keep in mind th<: clecisions,f the Hontrle Supreme Court in Dalmla power Limited,s case (supra) and also that of the Division Bench of this High Court in M/s TSI Business Parks Hyd.erabad Pvt Ltd,s clrse (s-uprt:). No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYAqREE ASSISTANT REGIStrRAR sEcTloN o#rcen I \ To, BSR GJP 1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2(2), Signature Towers Kondapur, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Director of lncome Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru. 3. One CC to M/s. R.S.ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. K.MAMATHA, SC FOR lT DEPT., IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910812023 \. =$ -s i q JUDGMENT WP.No.28047 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \i :r.-, ' iif,lt i -. -:.:;-:-...'.r --' d2