ZTE TELECOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 20 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16430/2024HC DelhiDLHC01086138202428 November 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider the objections filed by the petitioner at the threshold and pass an appropriate order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's grievance that their objections were not considered. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities must consider objections filed by assessees before proceeding further, especially when such objections are raised at the initial stage. The operative direction is to the Assessing Officer to consider the objections. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court chose to remand the matter for consideration of objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, ZTE Telecom India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation, as a notice under Section 153A of the Act could not be issued on that date. The petitioner had filed objections on 30.10.2024, raising four grounds: the notice was beyond limitation, issued without jurisdiction, invalid due to a missing valid Document Identification Number, and issued without application of mind. The petitioner's grievance was that these objections were not considered or decided by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17 is beyond the period of limitation, considering that a notice under Section 153A of the Act could not be issued on that date? 2. Whether the impugned notice was issued without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the notice is invalid for not mentioning a valid Document Identification Number? 4. Whether the notice was issued without application of mind? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice was beyond the period of limitation. It was also contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, was invalid due to the absence of a valid Document Identification Number, and was issued without application of mind. The petitioner's primary grievance was that none of these objections were considered or decided by the Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16430/2024 & CM APPL. 69378/2024

ZTE TELECOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Harpreet SinghAjmani and Ms. Ashmita Sharma, Advocates

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 20 & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs, Mr. Anmol Jagga and Mr. Prithviraj Dey, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

28.11.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17. According to the assessee, the said notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation, as the notice under Section 153A of the Act could not be issued on the aforesaid date. 2. The petitioner filed its objections in respect of the said notice on 30.10.2024, on essentially four grounds: (i) that the impugned notice was beyond the period of limitation; (ii) that it was issued without jurisdiction; (iii) that it is invalid, as it does not mention the valid Document 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 09/12/2024 at 13:02:09

Identification Number; and (iv) that the same is without application of mind. 3. It is the petitioner’s grievance that none of those objections have been considered and decided. 4. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the objections filed by the petitioner at the threshold, and pass an appropriate order. 5. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 6. Pending application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2024 ns

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

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 09/12/2024 at 13:02:09

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →