IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Oyo Hotels And Homes Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy/assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 19(1), Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2085 of 2023 & CM APPL. 7924-7926 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Court Order - Writ Petition - The court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax adverse to the petitioner's interests will not be given effect for a period of two weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from the impugned order denying the stay on recovery of complete tax demand and requested time-bound disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for AY 2021-22.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax adverse to the petitioner's interests will not be given effect for a period of two weeks.
Issues: The grievance of the petitioner was that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not dealt with its application in respect of the order denying the stay on recovery of complete tax demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application at the earliest, accord a personal hearing, and allow filing of written submissions. It also provided a safeguard by not giving effect to an adverse order for a period of two weeks.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax adverse to the petitioner's interests will not be given effect for a period of two weeks.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 7925/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM APPL. 7926/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for filing lengthy synopsis and list of dates]
2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2085/2023 & CM APPL. 7924/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
3. Issue notice.
3.1. Mr Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
4. Mr Rai says, that in view of the directions that we propose to pass, no counter-affidavit is required to be filed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
6. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) quashing the impugned order dated 01.02.2023, denying the stay on recovery of complete tax demand, and direct the Respondents to not to treat the Petitioner as assessee in default under s. 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the entire outstanding demand of Rs.11,39,93,05,320, arising pursuant to the assessment order dated 28.12.2022 for AY 2021-22 till the disposal of appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals); and/or
b. Issue necessary directions to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [National Faceless Appeal Centre (`NFAC.)] for time bound/expeditious disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order passed by Respondent No. 3;"
7. As is obvious upon a perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition, this writ action concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.
8. The grievance of the petitioner, which is also obvious, is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has not dealt with its application, preferred before him, in respect of the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short `the Act'].
9. The record shows, that the petitioner has preferred an application dated 01.02.2023 which, it appears, has not been disposed of by the CIT. In these circumstances, the CIT is directed to dispose of the application at the earliest, though not later than four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order passed today.
10. The CIT will accord a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner, and also allow filing of written submissions.
11. It is also made clear, that in case an order is passed by the CIT, which is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the order of the CIT will not be given effect to, for a period of two weeks from the date when the order is received by the petitioner.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12.1 Resultantly, the pending application shall stand closed.
13. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
The court emphasized the importance of the Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the petitioner's application and accord a personal hearing, and allowed filing of written submissions. It also prov....
The court ruled on the application of Articles 226 and 227 regarding interim tax relief, emphasizing that disputed tax demands require careful judicial consideration and timely hearings.
Procedural fairness and consideration of petitioner's response in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act
The court emphasized the importance of pursuing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner and restrained the revenue from taking coercive measures pending the decision in the pending appeals b....
Breach of principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Grant of personal hearing is a mandatory requirement under Section 144B(6)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, and failure to provide such a hearing can result in the setting aside of the assessment order.
Violation of principles of natural justice and failure to adhere to the timeline given in the notice led to the setting aside of the impugned assessment orders.
Timely disposal of pending appeals by the tax authorities is essential.
Failure to adhere to the directions in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit, which led to the quashing of the impugned notices and order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.