ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP/6356/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, represented by its liquidator, who filed a writ petition against various income tax authorities challenging the assessment order, computation sheet, and demand notice issued on 16.11.2021. The petitioner contended that they had filed objections to the draft assessment order with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within the stipulated time, which the first respondent (Income Tax Officer) allegedly overlooked, leading to the impugned orders. The court found that the petitioner had indeed filed the objections timely and directed the DRP to adjudicate on these objections, quashing the impugned orders and extending the time for the DRP to decide on the matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695591 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI; SANDEEP HUILGOL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Computation Sheet; Demand notice; Dispute Resolution Panel; Income Tax; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 144C(3)(b)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.6356/2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN : ETISALAT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED PAN AABCE 7261 M, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 56/3, 4TH FLOOR, VAKIL SQUARE, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS LIQUIDATOR SHRI BALADY SHEKAR SHETTY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI – 110 003. 2 2. THE DEPUTY /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2 (1) (1), BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 4. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-1 BENGALURU 4TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN, SANTOSHPURAM, 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRANSFER PRICING-1(2)(1) BENGALURU BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1036982323(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-1); QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 16.11.2021 3 BEARING DIN TBA/AST/S/186/2021-22/1036980393(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-2);QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1036980395(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-3) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R The petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order dated 16.11.2021 and the computation sheet of even date [Annexures-A1 to A3] and has sought for certain consequential reliefs. The petitioner’s grievance is within a narrow compass. It is undisputed that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 144C[3][b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘I-T Act’] with the first respondent against the Draft Assessment Order and the fourth respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned 4 order/computation in the premise that the petitioner has not filed objections with the fourth respondent. But the petitioner has undeniably filed objections with the fourth respondent-Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Bengaluru [for short, ‘DRP’] on 12.10.2021 and the objections are filed well within the time allowed in the Draft Assessment Order. It is stated on behalf of the Revenue that though the petitioner has filed objections before the DRP, but did not intimate the same to the first respondent which has resulted in the impugned order/computation/demand. However, if the petitioner has filed objections with the DRP within time and the final assessment orders are to be made after incorporating the directions by the DRP, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and call upon the DRP to adjudicate on the objections filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2021. Insofar as the limitation for the DRP, it is submitted 5 unanimously by the learned counsel for the parties that the DRP, in terms of the permissible time limit, would only have about three months from today. In the peculiar circumstances, there must be extension by nine [9] months so that the DRP is able to take a decision on merits considering the petitioner’s objections. Therefore the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part; [b] The impugned Assessment Orders/computation sheet/demand notice all dated 16.11.2021 [Annexures – A1 to A3 respectively] are quashed; [c] The fourth respondent – DRP is called upon to decide on the petitioner’s objections dated 12.10.2021 strictly in accordance with law; 6 [d] The limitation for the DRP, given the peculiarities of this case, shall stand extended for a period of nine [9] months commencing from today. SD/- JUDGE AN/- "