Beta Infratech (P) Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), New Delhi

$~51 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4537/2015 BETA INFRATECH (P) LTD..... PetitionerThrough:Mr S. Ganesh, Sr Advocate withMr Anand Sukumar, Mr S. Sukumaran and MrBhupesh Pathak versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NEW DELHI ..... RespondentThrough:Mr Kamal Sawhney CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R%06.05.2015 CM No. 8225/2015 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 4537/2015 and CM No. 8226/2015 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2015 which has beenpassed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), New Delhi on an application for stay ofdemand under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter pertains to theassessment year 2012-13. According to Mr Ganesh, the learned senior counsel appearingon behalf of the petitioner, the returned income was a loss of Rs 2.28 lakhsapproximately. The assessed income is over Rs 203 crores. Therefore, according to himthis is a high pitched assessment and demand. It has also been contended that the orderpassed by the Assessing Officer is a non-reasoned order without taking into accountseveral decisions of this court and that of the Supreme Court. Mr Ganesh, in particular, referred to the decisions of this court inSoul v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,Central Circle-10; 323 ITR 305 (Del) andValvoline Cummins Ltd. V. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(1); (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del).The saiddecisions have interpreted the CBDT circulars which are in question. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with thesubmission made by Mr Ganesh that the Assessing Officer ought to have passed aspeaking order in the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, we set aside theorder dated 24.04.2015 and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider theapplication under Section 220(6) of the said Act afresh. While doing so he shall grant anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall also take particular note of the abovementioned two decisions and other decisions of the Supreme Court which may be citedby the petitioner. Till the disposal of the application, the respondent shall not take anycoercive action. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MAY 06, 2015SU SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J