W.P.(C) 17620/2022: PTC India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19 1, New Delhi & Anr.

Case Name:

W.P.(C) 17620/2022: PTC India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19 1, New Delhi & Anr. (High Court of Delhi)

Key Takeaways:

1. The petitioner sought multiple reliefs, including quashing of the Impugned Order, stay of entire demand, refund of the amount paid under protest, and directions for not recovering any further demand.

2. The Court allowed the petitioner to move an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for expediting the disposal of the petitioner’s appeal.

3. Liberty was given to the petitioner to move an application before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for appropriate directions within 10 days of receipt of the order.

4. The Court directed that no precipitate action should be taken against the petitioner until a decision is made on the petitioner’s application.

5. If the order is adverse to the petitioner’s interests, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks.

Case Synopsis:

The provided is a judgment from the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, with the decision delivered on 23.12.2022. The case is identified as W.P.(C) 17620/2022 & CM Nos.56354-55/2022, with PTC India Ltd. as the petitioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19 1, New Delhi & Anr. as the respondents. The judgment was delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU.

Key Points:

1. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including quashing of the Impugned Order dated 23.11.2022, granting stay of entire demand, refund of the amount paid under protest, and directions for not recovering any further demand.

2. The Court allowed the petitioner to move an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for expediting the disposal of the petitioner’s appeal and before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for appropriate directions within specific timelines.

3. The Court directed that no precipitate action should be taken against the petitioner until a decision is made on the petitioner’s application.

4. If the order is adverse to the petitioner’s interests, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks.

The judgment provides a detailed account of the prayers made by the petitioner, the responses from the respondents, and the subsequent directives issued by the Court. It also outlines the specific timelines and actions to be taken by the petitioner and the concerned authorities.

FAQ:

Q1: What were the substantive prayers made in the writ petition?

A1: The substantive prayers included quashing the Impugned Order, granting stay of entire demand, refund of the amount paid under protest, and directions for not recovering any further demand.

Q2: What directives were given to the petitioner regarding seeking relief from the concerned authorities?

A2: The petitioner was allowed to move an application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for expediting the disposal of the appeal and before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for appropriate directions within specific timelines.

Q3: What action was directed by the Court until a decision is made on the petitioner’s application?

A3: The Court directed that no precipitate action should be taken against the petitioner until a decision is made on the petitioner’s application.

CM No.56355/2022

1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing.

W.P.(C) 17620/2022 & CM Nos.56354/2022 [Application filed on behalf

of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice to the respondents/revenue.

3. Mr Ruchir Bhatia accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

4. In view of the direction that we propose to pass, Mr Bhatia says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed. Therefore, with the consent of learned

counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final

disposal at this stage itself.

5. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:

(a) A writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 and thereby, granting stay of entire demand raised in notice under Section 156 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for A Ys 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 till disposal of appeal by the CIT (A).

(b) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to grant refund of the amount already paid by the Petitioner under protest.

(c) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to not recover any further demand pursuant to the Impugned Order dated 23.11.2022.

(d) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to expedite the disposal of the Petitioner's Appeal for A Y s 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21.”

6. Mr Sachit Jolly, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that insofar as the relief sought in prayer clause (d) is concerned, the petitioner will make an appropriate application before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] for expediting hearing in the matter.

6.1 If such an application is made, the CIT(A) will consider the same and endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest.

7. As regards the other reliefs, which are sought in the petition, are concerned, Mr Jolly says that he will move the Principal Commissioner of

Income Tax for appropriate directions.

8. We may note that it is Mr Jolly’s contention that the issue involved in the present matter is covered and, therefore, the petitioner should not have

been called upon to deposit even 20% of the disputed demand.

9. As per Mr Jolly, the issue involved concerns the recognition of surcharge received by the petitioner from its debtors, as income, albeit on receipt basis. Therefore, insofar as the reliefs sought for in prayer clauses (a) to (c) are concerned, liberty is given to the petitioner to move an application before the aforementioned authority within 10 days of receipt of a copy of

the order.

10. Upon an application being made, the concerned authority will deliberate on the same after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner and pass an order within the next three weeks. A copy of the order will be furnished to the petitioner.

11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

12. Till such time as the aforementioned authority takes a decision on the

petitioner’s application, no precipitate action will be taken qua the petitioner.

13. Needless to add, this direction will operate only if the petitioner moves an application within the timeframe set forth hereinabove.

14. If the order is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks.

15. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.

16. The parties will act, based on the digitally signed copy of the order passed today.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

DECEMBER 23, 2022