SONA BLW PRECISION FORGINGS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers

W.P.(C)/16130/2022HC DelhiDLHC01043832202224 January 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned demand notice dated September 30, 2022, and the assessment order of the same date. The Court accepted the submission made by the revenue that if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO), a fresh assessment order would be passed after taking into account the consolidated accounts prepared post-amalgamation. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the AO to frame a fresh assessment order considering the consolidated financial statements of the amalgamated company (the petitioner) and the revised return. The AO was directed to provide the petitioner with due opportunity and to complete the entire exercise expeditiously, but not later than 12 weeks from the receipt of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sona BLW Precision Forgings Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated September 30, 2022, which was based on an assessment order of the same date passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's primary contention was that the assessment order was not based on the combined financial statements prepared after the amalgamation of Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. with the petitioner. The original return was filed before the amalgamation was sanctioned by the NCLT, whereas a revised return was filed after the amalgamation. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have considered this revised return and the consolidated accounts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should have been based on the revised return and consolidated financial statements prepared after the amalgamation of the petitioner with Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order, dated September 30, 2022, was flawed as it was based on the original return filed before the amalgamation. The petitioner contended that the assessment should have taken into account the revised return filed on March 14, 2022, and the consolidated financial statements prepared post-amalgamation, as the amalgamation was sanctioned by the NCLT. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that it had instructions to convey to the court that if the matter were remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO), a fresh assessment order would be passed after considering the consolidated accounts prepared after the amalgamation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 16130/2022

SONA BLW PRECISION FORGINGS LIMITED ......Petitioner Through: Mr Himanshu S. Sinha and Mr Bhuwan Dhoopar, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

24.01.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This writ petition is directed against the demand notice dated 30.09.2022. The principal grievance of the petitioner is, that the demand notice is founded on the assessment order of even date i.e., 30.09.2022 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. 2. It is not in dispute, that the assessment order was not passed based on the combined financial statements, which were prepared pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation concerning Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner, i.e., Sona BLW Precision Forgings Limited. W.P.(C) 16130/2022

page 1 of 3

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 04/06/2026 at 23:36:38

The aforementioned assessment order is based on the original return dated 15.02.2021, which was filed before the scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench. Thus, the petitioner’s grievance was that the assessment order should have been framed taking into account the revised return, which was filed on 14.03.2022, after the amalgamation had taken place between the aforementioned companies. 4. On 30.11.2022, we had etched out the broad submissions advanced in the matter by Mr Himanshu S. Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, while issuing notice in the matter. 5. Mr Sunil Agarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, has returned with instructions, as indicated in paragraph 6 of our order dated 30.11.2022. 6. Mr Agarwal says that he has instructions to convey to the court that if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO), a fresh assessment order will be passed after taking into account the consolidated accounts prepared after the aforementioned companies were amalgamated. 7. Given this position, the impugned demand notice is set aside. Furthermore, the assessment order of even date, i.e., 30.09.2022 is also set aside. 8. The matter is remitted to the AO to frame a fresh assessment order after taking into account the consolidated financial statements of the amalgamated company, i.e., the petitioner, and the revised return. 9. Needless to say, the AO will frame a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. W.P.(C) 16130/2022

page 2 of 3 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 04/06/2026 at 23:36:38

10.

The entire exercise will be completed as expeditiously as possible, though not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. 11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Parties will act based on a digitally signed copy of the judgement passed today. 13. For the sake of good order and record, the Registry will scan and upload hard copy of the communication placed before us by Mr Sunil Agarwal, whereby instructions were received by him, so that it remains embedded in the case file.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

JANUARY 24, 2023

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 16130/2022

page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →