EBIX SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED SUCCESSOR TO EBIX FINCORP PTE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/7837/2023HC DelhiDLHC01022207202331 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the order dated 15.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider the response filed by the petitioner on 30.03.2023 to the notice issued under Section 148A(b). Consequently, the consequential notice dated 15.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act would also collapse. The Court set aside the impugned order and the consequential notice. Liberty was granted to the Assessing Officer to take further steps in the matter as per law. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ebix Singapore Pte Limited (successor to Ebix Fincorp Pte Limited), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 15.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential notice dated 15.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2019-20. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 14.03.2023, to which the petitioner responded on 30.03.2023. The petitioner contended that this response was not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) when passing the order under Section 148A(d). The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, accepted notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when the assessee's response to the notice under Section 148A(b) was not considered by the Assessing Officer? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) was flawed because the Assessing Officer failed to take into account the petitioner's response filed on 30.03.2023 to the notice issued under Section 148A(b). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted the position that the petitioner's response was not considered. The revenue did not file a counter-affidavit and agreed to argue the matter based on the existing record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 7837/2023

Pg. 1 of 2 $~109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision : 31.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 7837/2023 EBIX SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED SUCCESSOR TO EBIX FINCORP PTE LIMITED

..... Petitioner Through: Mr Gautam Jain and Mr Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocate

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

..... Respondent Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Pratyaksh Gupta, Jr Standing Counsel along with Ms Asha Gupta, Adv

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM Appl. 30215/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7837/2023 & CM Appl. 30215/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 3. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, accepts notice.

4.

Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Ruchir Bhatia, says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. 5. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties, the writ petition is taken up Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 7837/2023

Pg. 2 of 2 for hearing and final disposal of the case, at this stage itself. 6. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year 2019-20. 7. The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 15.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. In addition thereto, challenge is also laid to the consequential notice of even date, i.e., 15.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 8. The record shows that the notice dated 14.03.2023 was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner filed its response on 30.03.2023. 9. It appears that this response was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer (AO), while passing the order dated 15.04.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 10. Mr Bhatia cannot but accept this position. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 12. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Resultantly, the consequential notice of even date, i.e., 15.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act will collapse. 13.1 Liberty is however given to the AO to take next steps in the matter, albeit, as per law. 14. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 14.1 Consequently, pending application shall stand closed. 15. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE

MAY 31, 2023/as

Click here to check corrigendum, if any Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →