TIRUPATI BUILDINGS AND OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 & ANR.

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14233/2022 and CM APPL. Nos. 43463-64/2022 TIRUPATI BUILDINGS AND OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Mr.Manish Khurana, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-07 & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue along with Mr.Tushar Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue and Mr.Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 07.10.2022 CM APPL. 43464/2022 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14233/2022 and CM APPL. 43463/2022 Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31st August, 2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] Delhi in the case of M/s. Tirupati Buildings and Offices Private Limited for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2009-10 and for seeking necessary

directions to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-07/ Respondent No. 1 to issue guidelines for following the binding orders/judgments of superior Authorities. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the order dated 25th November, 2021 passed by the learned ITAT a superior authority has held that the sanctity of the approval obtained by the AO from the learned Additional Commissioner under Section 153 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide letter dated 28th March, 2013 was invalid and hence, all proceedings emanating therefrom in one of the cases were set aside. He states that the permission to seek approval and the sanction letter for approval under Section 153 D of the Act was by virtue of a single request/ permission, both dated 28th March, 2013. He states that the approval sought by the Assessing Officer, in almost 35 cases (including that of the Petitioner) was granted instantaneously without following the rules. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner states that there has been failure on part of the Respondents to follow the fundamental principles of judicial discipline and hierarchy which provide for following the judgments and orders passed by the higher judicial forum by the lower judicial forum or the officers/ authorities subordinate thereto. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy by way of an appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to urge all his contentions and submissions before the ITAT. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner presses for stay of the demand.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner has the option to file an interim application before the Tribunal. Needless to state, that if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 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. The writ petition and the application stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 7, 2022 j