Allowed

Lenova (India) Private Limted v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022WP/8984/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by Lenovo (India) Private Limited seeking to quash penalty orders and demand notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The Court quashed the orders as they were passed on the erroneous ground that the taxpayer's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal had been decided, despite the appeal stil

What did the court decide?

The impugned penalty order and demand notice dated 31.03.2022 were quashed, and penalty proceedings were directed to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Lenova (India) Private Limted Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8984 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LENOVA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTED RBD ICON LEVEL- 2, DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE MARATHAALLI OUTER RING ROAD BANGALORE - 560037 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGER DIRECT TAXES MR AMITH H RAJA

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILIP., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶11

NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOM NO 401 2^ND FLOOR , E RAMP

¶12

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM

¶13

DELHI – 110003.

¶14

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (1) (1) BMTC BUILDING KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560095.

¶15

3 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NATIONAL E - ASSESSMENT CENTRE ROOMNO 401 2^ND FLOOR E -RAMP

¶16

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

¶17

STADIUM DELHI – 110 003.

¶18

4 . PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 BMTC BUILDING ,80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA

¶19

BENGALURU - 560095

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND., ADVOCATE FOR R- TO R-3) (V/O/DT: 28.04.2022)

¶22

²

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 31.03.2022 ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY R-1 UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017.

¶24

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶27

following reliefs:

¶28

a) Quashing of the order dated 31.03.2022 bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/202122/1042378796(1) (Annexure-M) passed by the 1^st Respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17.

¶29

b) Quashing the demand notice dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-N) bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/S/156/2021-22/1042328424(1) issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 201617;

¶30

c) Directing the Respondents to keep the penalty proceedings initiated vide notice bearing DIN No.ITBA/PNL/271(1)(c)/202122/1032713437(1) dated 28.04.2021 under Sections 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act (Annexure-C), in abeyance, until disposal of the Petitioner’s appeal against the assessment order dated 28.04.2021 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal; and

¶31

³

¶32

d) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

¶35

The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the draft Assessment Order dated 31.12.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer, petitioner filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer on 04.03.2021, pursuant to which, respondent No.1 passed the Final Assessment Order on 28.04.2021 and issued a notice dated 11.06.2021 proposing to levy penalty under Section 274 r/w. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the I.T. Act”).

¶36

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 25.06.2021. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner on 23.07.2021, calling upon the petitioner to

¶37

⁴

¶38

inform the status of the appeal and to provide reasons as to why penalty should not be levied. In response thereto, petitioner sent its reply dated 22.03.2022 requesting the respondents to drop the penalty proceedings or atleast keep the same in abeyance till disposal of the appeal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order and issue the impugned demand notice both dated 31.03.2022 levying penalty upon the petitioner on the erroneous premise/basis that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been disposed of without appreciating that the appeal was still pending adjudication, despite which the respondents are proceeding to enforce and implement the impugned order and demand notice and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶40

respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

⁵

¶42

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

¶43

the petitioner, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 and imposed penalty upon the petitioner under Sec.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the erroneous premise/ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed without appreciating the material on record including the latest status of the appeal, which clearly establishes that the appeal is still pending adjudication as on today and consequently, the impugned order and notice passed/issued by respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed and the same are to be directed to be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal.

¶44

6. In the result, I pass the following:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶47

(ii) The impugned penalty order at Annexure-M dated 31.03.2022 and the impugned demand notice at AnnexureN dated 31.03.2022 are hereby quashed.

¶48

(iii) The respondents are directed to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal

¶49

⁶

¶50

preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the same attaining finality in accordance with law.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Srl/Bmc

Lenova (India) Private Limted v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lenova (India) Private Limted v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Spportzvillage Foundation Vs Angels Education Society

M/S Baddyzone Private Limited Vs Lecaprio

Spiegel Enterprises Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Edgeverve Systems Limited Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

The Sirsi Urban Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)