Vodafone Cellular Limited V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle - 18 (2) and The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

WP/41308/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Vodafone Cellular Limited, which filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), challenging the rejection of their application for a 'no deduction of tax certificate' under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the rejection was not based on a proper consideration of the parameters set out in Section 197 and the accompanying rules, as the petitioner had been incurring losses from 2010-11 to 2013-14. The respondents defended the rejection, citing outstanding dues from the petitioner. The court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking in detailed reasoning, leading to its quashing and the directive for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689839 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANMATHI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SESHACHALA V
• Keywords: Cryptic order; Income Tax; Reconsideration; No deduction of tax certificate; Section 197
• Section: 197

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013 BEFORE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.41308 OF 2013 (T-IT) BETWEEN: VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED) NO.1045/1046, AVANASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU – 641 018. ALSO AT : MARUTHIINFOTECH CENTRE, NO.11/1, 12/1, KORAMANGALA, AMAR JYOTI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 071, REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER, SRI. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SESHACHALA M. V, ADV..) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE - 18 (2), 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 032. 2 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD , BANGALORE – 560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANMATHI INDIRA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R.1 & R.2) * *** * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 08.08.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANN-K. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RECONSIDER FORM NO.13 AND ISSUE A CERTIFICATE FOR 'NO DEDUCTION OF TAX CERTIFICATE U/S 197\" OF HE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R Communication dated 8.8.2013 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner (Annexure-K) is assailed in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 197 of the 3 Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for short) for the year 2014-15 by seeking no deduction of tax certificate under the said section. A copy of the application made in that behalf is at Annexure-A. The premise on which such a certification was sought was because the petitioner was successively under a loss from the assessment years 2010-11 to the assessment year 2013-14. After the receipt of the application, by communication dated 25.6.2013, the petitioner was requested to appear before the authority on 05-07-2013, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F. The petitioner appeared on the said date and also filed Annexure-G which is the response to the communication dated 25.6.2013. Thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure-K has been passed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 4 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the parameters for grant of a no deduction of tax certificate under Section 197 of the Act read with the rules thereunder have not been considered nor applied as far as the petitioner is concerned. It is stated that the circumstances and conditions under which such a certificate can be issued are stated in the section and the rules made thereunder and would squarely apply to the petitioner but, instead of considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the said parameters, Annexure-K has been issued which is neither a speaking order nor it reflects the correct position in the matter. It is therefore, contended that the impugned communication be quashed and a direction be issued to respondent no.1 to reconsider the application made by the petitioner in accordance with law. 5 5. However, the learned counsel for the respondents supported Annexure-K and stated that when there were outstanding dues from the petitioner and thus the application of the petitioner could not be considered favourably. 6. I have perused the communication at Annexure-K dated 8.8.2013 and find that it is a very cryptic one rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 197 of the Act without giving details as to the outstanding demand and as to whether the petitioner’s case falls within the scope of section 197 and the rules made thereunder or not. There no reasons assigned as to why the application of the petitioner has been rejected. In that view of the matter, Annexure-K dated 8.8.2013 is quashed. First respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the various materials which have been placed by the petitioner and in accordance with law. 6 7. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 25.11.2013 without insisting upon any further notice from the said authority. SD/- JUDGE Sk/- "