M/S Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(2),Delhi And Anr

$~207 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 8586/2022 & CM APPL.25860/2022 M/S SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate withMr. Rohan Khare and Ms. PratishthaSingh, Advocates.Through:Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate withMr. Rohan Khare and Ms. PratishthaSingh, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2),DELHI AND ANR..... Respondents ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Puneet Rai with Ms. AdeebaMujahid and Mr. Karan Pandey,Advocates. Date of Decision: 1[st]June, 2022 % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMOHAN, J (Oral): J U D G M E N T 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause noticedated 15[th]March, 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), order dated 31[st]March, 2022 issued underSection 148A(d) and the notice dated 31[st]March, 2022 issued under section148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of the“information” available with the Respondent No 1, it has been alleged thatthe Petitioner’s claim for IGST Refund was incorrect and hence, the said W.P.(C) 8586/2022 amount “is required to be disallowed”. He states that an IGST Refund, beinga balance sheet item, is not a claim made in the profit and loss account andby no stretch of imagination can the same be termed as “income chargeableto tax having escaped assessment” and hence, in terms of Section 147 of theAct as well as the first proviso to Section 148, the show cause notice dated15[th]March, 2022 is patently illegal. 3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner also states that the order dated 31[st]March, 2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and notice dated 31[st]March, 2022 issued under section 148 of the Act have been passed/issued ingross violation of the principles of natural justice. He states that theimpugned order does not even mention thatthe petitioner had filed anapplication seeking an adjournment so as to enable it to file a reply onmerits. 4.He emphasises that the petitioner became aware of the show causenotice dated 15[th]March, 2022 for the first time on 24[th]March, 2022 as it wassent to the wrong email address. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly states that the impugnedorder also reeks of non-application of mind since the said order recordsincorrect facts. 6.Issue notice. 7.Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel on instructions states that as thePetitioner did not have the opportunity to file a reply and the order underSection 148A(d) was not on merits, the Respondent has no objection if thematter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. 8.Learned counsel for the Petitioner is agreeable to the same. Heemphasises that the Petitioner shall raise all its submissions and contentions W.P.(C) 8586/2022 Page 2 of 3 before the Assessing Officer by filing additional objections. 9.Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order under Section148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31[st]March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 are set aside and the matter isremanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Petitioneris given liberty to file its additional reply to the show cause notice issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Act within two weeks. The Assessing Officeris directed to decide the matter by way of a reasoned order in accordancewith law within eight weeks thereafter. This Court clarifies that it has notcommented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions ofall the parties are left open. 10.With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and applicationstand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J JUNE 1, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J W.P.(C) 8586/2022