Sr. No. 210

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 07.07.2026

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.08.2026

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 10.08.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof

Present : Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate (through V. C.) and Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, Standing Counsel, for the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * * *

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Through the instant petition the petitioner challenges final assessment order dated 15.12.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Also under challenge is the notice of demand dated 15.12.2023, issued under Section 156 of the Act and the notice dated 15.12.2023, issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act, initiating penalty S2IdPc h 0ao H ua 2tcn A tu n 6e ja M m d .s0 b t i S g e 8 t aa H no.1 nr t E h t0 d h R e1 h 1 a S a: r I c4 y N c8 a G u n r H a a c h y ig a h n c d o i u n r te t, grity of this proceedings against the petitioner.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of UC Mobile New World Limited, British Virgin Islands. It is engaged in the distribution and re-selling of designated services of UCWeb Singapore Pte Ltd. in India. On 15.03.2022, for the assessment year 2021-22, the petitioner filed its income tax return. The petitioner’s case came under scrutiny resulting in the issuance of a notice to it dated 28.06.2022, under Section 143(2) of the Act, to which notice the petitioner filed a written response dated 13.07.2022. Since the petitioner’s scrutiny assessment involved international transactions with associate enterprises, the Assessing Officer (for short, the AO) made a reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (for short-TPO) to determine the arm’s length price. Thereafter, an order dated 29.10.2023, under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed by the TPO which order was received by the AO on 31.10.2023. Through order dated 29.10.2023, the TPO ordered addition of Rs. 60,09,84,289/- to the petitioner’s declared income. Accepting the order of the TPO dated 29.10.2023, the AO passed a draft assessment order dated 06.11.2023 under Section 144C(1) of the Act and got the same served upon the petitioner. Since in terms of Section 144C(15)(b) of the Act, the petitioner was an “eligible assessee” on account of there being variance in the filing of its income tax return and the order of the TPO, the petitioner availed of its remedy available to it under Section 144C(2) of the Act by filing objections to the draft assessment order dated 06.11.2023 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short, DRP). Such objections were filed on 06.12.2023 i.e. within the 30 days allocated for S2IdPc h 0ao H ua 2tcn A tu n 6e ja M m d .s0 b t i S g e 8 t aa H no.1 nr t E h t0 d h R e1 h 1 a S a: r I c4 y N c8 a G u n r H a a c h y ig a h n c d o i u n r te t, grity of this filing of such objections under Section 144C(2) of the Act. However, the petitioner failed to intimate the AO with regard to filing of objections by it and therefore, while such objections were pending to be decided by the DRP, the AO, in terms of Section 144C(3) of the Act, went on to pass the final assessment order dated 15.12.2023 under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144B and 144C(3) of the Act. Alongwith the final assessment order, a notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act and a notice for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act, both dated 15.12.2023, were also served upon the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner knocked the doors of t