Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Centralcircle-30, New Delhi

$~77 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 16603/2024 OPPO MOBILES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:Mr Kamal Sawhney with Mr NikhilAgarwal, Mr Puru Medhira and MrNishank Vashishtha, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALCIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI .....RespondentThrough:Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC. % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R02.12.2024 1.Issue notice. Mr Shlok Chandra, the learned counsel appearing forthe Revenue accepts notice. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying asunder: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order ordirection in the nature of certiorari quashing the ImpugnedRejection Letter received on 24.02.2024 (incorrectly dated as21.02.2023) as bad in law; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus and / or any other writ, order ordirection in the nature of mandamus directing the Assessing Officerto allow the Petitioner to convert the amounts lying in its currentaccounts into annually renewable interest bearing fixed deposits ofequivalent amounts in terms of the email dated 29.01.2024 and/or modify the orders dated 10.06.2024 under Section 281B of the Actto the extent necessary.” 3.The learned counsel for the Revenue has also sought time to takeinstructions, and consequently, the hearing of the present petition wasdeferred to post-lunch session. 4.As is apparent from the above, the petitioner merely seeks that itsfund which are lying in the current accounts and are attached by theRevenue should be permitted to be transferred to the short-term fixeddeposits yielding interest while not disturbing the attachment of the funds inquestion. The petitioner had also approached the department for seeking asimilar relief, however, the same has not been granted. 5.The grievance of the petitioner is that its funds, which have beenattached, are lying in the current accounts maintained with the banks are notproductive. Whilst the petitioner is not seeking that the attachment be lifted,the petitioner seeks that the funds be kept in an interest-bearing fixeddeposits. 6.Mr Chandra states that the assessment order is likely to be passedshortly. He also resits the grant of relief on the ground that the petitioner isnot co-operating with the department. 7.It is not necessary for this court to examine the question whether thepetitioner is co-operating with the Revenue Authorities. Plainly, theRevenue cannot deny the permission to place the funds in fixed deposits as apunitive measure. The short question to be examined whether there is anycredible objection relating to the funds of the petitioner being transferred tointerest- bearing fixed deposits. 8.Mr Kamal Sawhney, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to a letter dated 21.02.2023 sent by the office ofthe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which sets out the tabularstatement mentioning the details of the current account and the balancesavailable. The learned counsel for the parties’ state that whilst the tabularstatement as set out in the said letter is accurate, the date of the letter shouldbe read as 24.02.2024. 9.The tabular statement as set out in the said letter is reproduced below: 10.As noted above, the said tabular statement contains the details of thefunds lying in the current accounts which are now attached by the Revenue.Since we find no substance in the objection raised by the Revenue to convertthe said amounts into fixed deposits, we consider it apposite to pass thefollowing directions: the attention of this court to a letter dated 21.02.2023 sent by the office ofthe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which sets out the tabularstatement mentioning the details of the current account and the balancesavailable. The learned counsel for the parties’ state that whilst the tabularstatement as set out in the said letter is accurate, the date of the letter shouldbe read as 24.02.2024. 9.The tabular statement as set out in the said letter is reproduced below: 10.As noted above, the said tabular statement contains the details of thefunds lying in the current accounts which are now attached by the Revenue.Since we find no substance in the objection raised by the Revenue to convertthe said amounts into fixed deposits, we consider it apposite to pass thefollowing directions: (i)The concerned Banks shall open a short-term fixed deposit for aperiod of six months in regard to the funds lying in the currentaccounts maintained by the petitioner with the respective banks.period of six months in regard to the funds lying in the currentaccounts maintained by the petitioner with the respective banks.(ii)The Revenue’s attachment in respect of the fixed depositscontinues to operate till the same are lifted by any order passedby the Income Tax Authorities.continues to operate till the same are lifted by any order passedby the Income Tax Authorities. (iii)In the event the Revenue issues any communication forappropriating the said amounts, the concerned bank shall dulycomply with the same and remit the amount demandedincluding any interest that may have accrued.appropriating the said amounts, the concerned bank shall dulycomply with the same and remit the amount demandedincluding any interest that may have accrued. (iv)If the Banks do not receive any communication from theDepartment for appropriation of the said fund, the amount keptin the fixed deposit along with interest shall be renewed forfurther terms of six months successively .Department for appropriation of the said fund, the amount keptin the fixed deposit along with interest shall be renewed forfurther terms of six months successively . 11.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.12.All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. It is clarifiedthat this court has not examined either the merits of the attachment order orany other issue relating to the petitioner’s liability under the Income TaxAct, 1961.12.All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. It is clarifiedthat this court has not examined either the merits of the attachment order orany other issue relating to the petitioner’s liability under the Income TaxAct, 1961. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 02, 2024 /tr SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any