Disposed

Scan Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/37/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that the impugned demand be not enforced pending the disposal of the appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as the contentions relate to the initiation of proceedings which create a risk of anomalous situation. The writ petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Non-enforcement of impugned demand pending disposal of appeal by CIT(A).

Scan Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 37/2017

¶4

SCAN HOLDINGS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

¶8

..... Respondent Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R

¶10

% 08.01.2018

¶11

The petitioner submits that the reasons to believe were furnished on 31^st October, 2016, nearly eight months after the request. The order disposing of the objections to initiation was passed on 28^th November, 2016. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 21st December, 2016 and listed in January, 2017.

¶12

Before the first listing and as limitation period was expiring, assessment order was passed on 31st December,2016.

¶13

It is accepted that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 31^st December, 2016 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

¶14

Numerous contentions and issues have been raised in the present writ petition on the question of initiation of proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short).

¶15

As the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the assessment order, it may be appropriate and proper for the petitioner to raise the

¶16

contentions raised in the writ petition before the first appellate authority, rather than the writ court examining the issue of initiation of proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act. We say so, for the reason that proceedings for the same assessment year should not become subject matter of challenge partly before the High Court in a writ petition and partly before the first appellate authority. This would create difficulties and may result in anomalous situations.

¶17

The second contention of the petitioner, we may record, is that Section 6(3)(ii) of the Act invoked by the Assessing Officer to tax the income of the subsidiary, is contrary to the Act and law declared by different Courts. This issue is directly a subject matter of the appeal.

¶18

The present writ petition has remained pending since January, 2017. We accordingly, direct that till the disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the impugned demand will not be enforced. The petitioner would file additional grounds of appeal, which would be accepted.

¶19

We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits, which will be examined by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without any costs.

¶20

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶21

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶22

JANUARY 08, 2018 MR/VKR

Scan Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Scan Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Kumar Mohanty Vs Directorate of Estate and Ors.

Basal Verma Vs Medical Council of India and Anr.

Naveen Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Hindon River Mills Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Master Aarav Dewan Vs Modern School and Anr.

Jagdish Prakash and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Saroj Jain Vs Registrar of Corperative Societies and Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Anr.

Indo Burma Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner, Vat, Delhi

Kellogg Company Vs Pops Foods Products (P) Ltd. & Anr.

Him Logistics Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commissioner of Customs(Export) Icd, Tughlakabad, New Delhi

M/S Il&Fc Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. Vs Paschimanchal Cidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Jai Bhawani Industries Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Global Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.