Allowed

Boeing Uk Training Flight Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 1 2, International Taxation & Anr.

Delhi HC24 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/4431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an Income Tax reassessment notice. The Court set aside the notice because it was issued without the mandatory approval of the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relying on a precedent (Twylight Infrastructure) that determines the authority based on the age of the assessment year.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 14 February 2023 issued under Section 148 is set aside and quashed.

Boeing Uk Training Flight Services Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4431/2023, CM APPL. 17016/2023 (Interim Relief) BOEING UK TRAINING FLIGHT SERVICES LTD.

¶3

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly and Ms. Disha Jham, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & ANR.

¶6

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. for Revenue.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 24.01.2024

¶11

Learned counsels for respective parties are ad idem that insofar as the grant of approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings is concerned, the same would stand answered in favour of the assessee in light of the conclusions recorded in the judgment of our Court in Twylight Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 3 Delhi & Ors. [2024:DHC:259-DB]. The relevant paragraphs of that decision are extracted hereinbelow:-

¶12

“ 12.1. Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 151 of the amended Act (which has been extracted hereinabove) clearly specify the authority whose approval can trigger the reassessment proceedings. Thus, if three (3) years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, the specified authority who would grant approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings will be the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. However, if more than three (3) years from the end of the relevant AY have elapsed, the specified authority for according approval for

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:32:38

¶15

reassessment shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General.

¶16

12.2. That the approval is mandatory is plainly evident on perusal of the first proviso appended to Section 148 of the Act. the said proviso, at the risk of repetition, reads as follows:

¶17

“… Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice….”

¶18

12.3. In these cases, there is no dispute that although three (3) years had elapsed from of the end of the relevant AY, the approval was sought from authorities specified in clause (i), as against clause (ii) of Section 151.

¶19

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶20

13. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law.”

¶21

In view of the aforesaid and since undisputedly in the facts of the present case, the approval had been granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, we set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on this short ground alone.

¶22

The writ petition shall consequently stand allowed on the aforesaid terms. The impugned notice dated 14 February 2023 shall stand quashed and set aside. The aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh, if so permissible in law.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:32:38

¶25

All other rights and contentions of the writ petitioner are kept open.

¶26

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. JANUARY 24, 2024/ neha

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:32:38

Boeing Uk Training Flight Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 1 2, International Taxation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boeing Uk Training Flight Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 1 2, International Taxation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aakash Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sushma Bhatia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through the Commissioner

Ankita Meena Vs Airport Authority of India and Anr.

Shiva Industries Vs Union of India Ministry of Defence & Ors.

Shri Shyam Shikshan Sansthan & Anr. Vs Government of India & Anr.

Prof. S Karan Shiksha Samiti & Anr. Vs Government of India & Anr.

Shri Jangam Jyoti Murugha Rajendra D.Ed. College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Prakash Chand Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shanju Rani Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajender Kumar Arya Vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-35(1), Delhi & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs Sidwal Refrigeration Industries Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi- 7 Vs M/S Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. .

Upinder Kumar Wanchoo Vs Union of India & Ors.

Readers Digest Book and Home Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.