Wp/6356/2022 Of Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF MARCH2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRITPETITIONNO.6356/2022(T-IT) BETWEEN : ETISALATSOFTWARESOLUTIONSPRIVATELIMITED PANAABCE7261M, HAVINGITSREGISTEREDOFFICEAT56/3,4 FLOOR,VAKILSQUARE, NEWGURAPPANAPALYA,BANNERGHATTAMAINROAD, BENGALURU–560029. REPRESENTEDHEREINBYITSLIQUIDATOR SHRIBALADYSHEKARSHETTY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND : 1.THEADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX/INCOMETAXOFFICER NATIONALFACELESSASSESSMENTCENTRE, 2 FLOOR,JAWAHARLALNEHRUSTADIUM NEWDELHI–110003. 2.THEDEPUTY/ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),BENGALURU BMTCBUILDING,80FEETROAD, 6 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560095. COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),BENGALURU BMTCBUILDING,80FEETROAD, 6 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560095. 3.THECOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-2,BENGALURU,INCOMETAX-2,BENGALURU,BMTCBUILDING,80FEETROAD, 6 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 6 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 4.THEDISPUTERESOLUTIONPANEL-1BENGALURU 4 FLOOR,KENDRIYASADAN,SANTOSHPURAM, 2 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560034 REPRESENTEDHEREINBYITSSECRETARY. PANEL-1BENGALURU 4 FLOOR,KENDRIYASADAN,SANTOSHPURAM, 2 BLOCK,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560034 REPRESENTEDHEREINBYITSSECRETARY. 5.THEDEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX TRANSFERPRICING-1(2)(1)BENGALURU BMTCBUILDING80FEETROAD,6 BLOCK,NEARKHBGAMESVILLAGE,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560095. OFINCOMETAX TRANSFERPRICING-1(2)(1)BENGALURU BMTCBUILDING80FEETROAD,6 BLOCK,NEARKHBGAMESVILLAGE,KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU–560095. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1036982323(1) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-1); QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN TBA/AST/S/186/2021-22/1036980393(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-2);QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.11.2021 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2021-22/1036980395(1) ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A-3) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R The petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order dated 16.11.2021 and the computation sheet of even date [Annexures-A1 to A3] and has sought for certain consequential reliefs. The petitioner’s grievance is within a narrow compass. It is undisputed that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 144C[3][b] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, ‘I-T Act’] with the first respondent against the Draft Assessment Order and the fourth respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order/computation in the premise that the petitioner has not filed objections with the fourth respondent. But the petitioner has undeniably filed objections with the fourth respondent-Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Bengaluru [for short, ‘DRP’] on 12.10.2021 and the objections are filed well within the time allowed in the Draft Assessment Order. It is stated on behalf of the Revenue that though the petitioner has filed objections before the DRP, but did not intimate the same to the first respondent which has resulted in the impugned order/computation/demand. However, if the petitioner has filed objections with the DRP within time and the final assessment orders are to be made after incorporating the directions by the DRP, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and call upon the DRP to adjudicate on the objections filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2021. Insofar as the limitation for the DRP, it is submitted However, if the petitioner has filed objections with the DRP within time and the final assessment orders are to be made after incorporating the directions by the DRP, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and call upon the DRP to adjudicate on the objections filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2021. Insofar as the limitation for the DRP, it is submitted unanimously by the learned counsel for the parties that the DRP, in terms of the permissible time limit, would only have about three months from today. In the peculiar circumstances, there must be extension by nine [9] months so that the DRP is able to take a decision on merits considering the petitioner’s objections. Therefore the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part; [b] The impugned Assessment Orders/computation sheet/demand notice all dated 16.11.2021 [Annexures – A1 to A3 respectively] are quashed; [c] The fourth respondent – DRP is called upon to decide on the petitioner’s objections dated 12.10.2021 strictly in accordance with law; [d] The limitation for the DRP, given the peculiarities of this case, shall stand extended for a period of nine [9] months commencing from today. SD/- JUDGE AN/-