ORANGE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/17142/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01039663202323 November 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner's submission regarding the taxability of amounts received, specifically concerning AY 2010-11, was pending before the court in other writ petitions. These earlier petitions were disposed of by holding that the question was no longer res integra in light of the Division Bench's decision in ITA No. 160/2015 and connected matters. Since these submissions remained undisputed by the revenue, the court quashed the impugned notice dated 19.04.2023 and the order dated 19.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ratio decidendi is that if a specific issue has been conclusively decided by a higher bench of the same court, initiating fresh proceedings on the same issue without new material would be unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Orange Telecommunication Corporation Company, a French entity, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notice dated April 19, 2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessing Officer) initiating reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The petitioner also challenged an order dated April 19, 2023, passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the same AY. The petitioner argued that the taxability of amounts received by it over the years, specifically for AY 2010-11, was pending before the same court in other writ petitions. These earlier petitions were disposed of based on a Division Bench decision in ITA No. 160/2015 and connected matters, which determined that the issue was no longer res integra.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 19.04.2023, initiating reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue of taxability of amounts received by it over the years, which formed the basis for the reassessment proceedings, had already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in ITA No. 160/2015 and connected matters. This prior decision rendered the question no longer res integra, implying that the reassessment proceedings were not warranted. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding this issue. However, the revenue issued the impugned notice and order, indicating their position that reassessment was permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42251 WP No. 17142 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17142 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

ORANGE 111 QUAI DU PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 92130 ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX FRANCE, REPRESENTED BY IS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR BENOIT DELAPLACE TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION COMPANY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARPREET SINGH AJMANI & SRI YOGESHA B. POOJARI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 2(2), ROOM NO 430, 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN), ROOM NO. 356, C.R. BUILIDING, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110 002.

3.

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED 10TH FLOOR BIRLA CENTURION CENTURION MILLS COMPOUND PANDURANG BUDKKAR MARG WORLI MUMBAI-400030 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42251 WP No. 17142 of 2023

4.

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DILIP ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DT. 19.04.2023 (IMPUGNED NOTICE, MARKED AS ANNX-E VIDE NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1052180323(1) ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2016-17; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 [MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148A(d) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2016-17.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question for consideration would be the taxability of the amounts received by petitioner over a period of years. This question insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 was pending consideration before this Court in W.P.No.51999/2019 and W.P.No.53137/2008, and

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:42251 WP No. 17142 of 2023

these writ petitions are disposed of holding that such question is no longer res integra in view of the decision of a Division Bench in ITA No.160/2015 and connected matters.

The submissions remain undisputed, and therefore the petition is allowed quashing the impugned notice and the order dated 19.04.2023 [Annexures – E and F].

SD/- JUDGE

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →