Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 16217/2024 & CM APPL. 68142-43/2024 SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION .....PetitionerThrough:Mr Ajay Vohra, Sr Advocate with MrNeeraj Jain, Mr Anshul Sachar andMr Tavish Verma, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....RespondentThrough:MrSunilAggarwal,SSC,MrShivanshBPandya,MrViplavAcharya,JSCsandMrUtkarshTiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R %22.11.2024 1.Issue notice. 2.The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 3.The petitioner, Suzuki Motor Corporation (hereafter Assessee), hasfiled the present petition, inter alia, impugning the assessment order dated22.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 147 readwith 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as thenotice dated 22.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 156 of the Act. 4.The Assessee had filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for theassessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring an income of ₹45,57,35,07,705/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, thereafter, the Assessee received a notice dated 31.03.2022 issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the Assessee to show causewhy its assessment for the AY 2018-19 not be reopened. 5.The Assessee filed objections to the said notice on 22.04.2022,however, the same was not accepted and the assessing officer (AO) passedan order dated 28.04.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act holding that itwas a fit case for reopening the assessment for the AY 2018-19. The AOalso issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for initiating thereassessment proceedings. 6.The Assessee states that the draft assessment order dated 28.03.2024was passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act whereby the sales of spareparts and capital goods by the Assessee to its associate entities in India, weresought to be brought in the net of tax as attributable to the Assessee’spermanent establishment (PE) in India. 7.The Assessee filed its objection in the Form No. 35A dated26.04.2024 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter the DRP). Thesaid objections are pending and the Assessee received notice dated02.11.2024 from the DRP scheduling the hearing on 27.11.2024. 8.Notwithstanding, the Assessee’s objection were pending before theDRP, the AO issued a notice dated 18.07.2024 under Section 221(1) of theAct indicating that a total demand of ₹6,07,24,23,190/- was pending for the AY 2018-19. According to the Assessee, no such demand could be raised asthe final assessment order was not passed. However, on making furtherenquiries, it was found that the impugned order was passed by the AO andwas uploaded on the portal along with the copy of impugned notice under Section 156 of the Act. The Assessee also contends that no real time alertwas sent to its registered email ID. 9.Mr Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitsthat the previous AO has passed the assessment order as the informationregarding filing of the objections before the DRP was not furnished by theAssessee to the AO. 10.This is stoutly contested by Mr Vohra, the learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the Assessee.He also points out that in fact theAssessee had informed the AO regarding filing the objections before theDRP but he had not acknowledged the same. 11.It is not necessary for this court to examine this controversy as it is anadmitted position that notwithstanding, the lack of information with the AO,if an objection has been filed and is pending before the DRP, the assessmentorder passed in ignorance of the said objection is required to be set aside. 12.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The notice underSection 221(1) of the Act in respect of the AY 2018-19; the impugned orderdated 22.05.2024; and the impugned notice under Section 156 of the Act areset aside. 13.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationsalso stands disposed of. 11.It is not necessary for this court to examine this controversy as it is anadmitted position that notwithstanding, the lack of information with the AO,if an objection has been filed and is pending before the DRP, the assessmentorder passed in ignorance of the said objection is required to be set aside. 12.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The notice underSection 221(1) of the Act in respect of the AY 2018-19; the impugned orderdated 22.05.2024; and the impugned notice under Section 156 of the Act areset aside. 13.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationsalso stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 22, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any