SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13868 of 2021 & CM Appls. 43766-43767 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2021




Judicial authority must adhere to established precedents when resolving rectification applications, ensuring consistency in decision-making.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act - Section 200A/206 CB - Writ petition filed to quash intimation/order deeming a demand notice and to stay recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that prior judgments in similar cases were ignored in rectification applications. The Respondent admitted an error in not deciding the rectification application of the petitioner. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Judicial adherence - The judiciary emphasizes the need for authorities to follow established precedents in delivering decisions. The court accepted the assurance that the Assessing Officer would rectify the earlier oversight in accordance with prior judgments. (Paras 4-5)

(C) Interim relief - The court ordered that until the Assessing Officer issues an order, the demand shall not be enforced. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a demand of Rs.1,84,78,190/- without the Assessing Officer considering earlier judgments in favor of the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court acknowledges the respondent's assurance to rectify the demand based on prior judgments.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer correctly adjudicated the petitioner's rectification requests, given previous judgments favoring the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the Assessing Officer must adhere to past judgments, ensuring consistent application of the law.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of, and the impugned demand shall not be executed until further order from the Assessing Officer.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order and recovery notice (Para 1)
2. cited judgments supporting petitioner's argument (Para 2)
3. notice issued and petition disposed (Para 3 , 7)
4. error acknowledged by revenue (Para 4)
5. court upholds time-bound resolution and suspends demand (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the intimation/order cum deemed demand notice passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 200A/206 CB of the Income Tax Act [the Act] dated 31st October, 2021 raising demand on the Petitioner and all the purported proceedings thereunder. Petitioner also seeks a direction to stay the recovery proceedings in respect of disputed outstanding demand of Rs.1,84,78,190/- for second quarter of Financial Year 2021-22.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the matter in issue being covered in petitioner's favour by a judgment of this Court in Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. vs. Income Tax Officer TDS & Anr., W.P.(C) 9051/2020 and in the petitioner's own case being W.P.(C) 3876/2021 neither the Centralized Processing Centre nor the Assessing Officer have decided petitioner's rectification application.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for Revenue accepts notice. He admits that there has been an error on the part of the Assessing Officer in not deciding the petitioner's request/application dated 22nd November, 2021.

5. He assures this Court that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall decide the petitioner's request/application in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. vs. Income Tax Officer TDS & Anr., W.P.(C) 9051/2020 as well as in accordance with the judgment and order passed in the case of petitioner's own case in W.P.(C) 3876/2021 dated 3rd June, 2021 within four weeks.

6. The assurance/undertaking given by learned counsel for Revenue/Respondents is accepted by this Court and the Revenue/Respondents are held bound by the same. Till the order is passed by the Assessing Officer, the impugned demand shall not be given effect to.

7. Recording the aforesaid undertaking and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top