Paypal Payments Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
2024 Latest Caselaw 22983 Bom

Bombay High Court

Paypal Payments Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 August, 2024

Author: G. S. Kulkarni

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

                                                  901.WPL.30944.2023-F.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO.30944 OF 2023

Paypal Payments Private Limited                       ....   Petitioner
   Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax                  ....   Respondent
                            _________
Mr. Jehangir Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w. Rubal Bansal, Anuj
Jhaveri, Prakhar Pandey a/w. Mihir Modi i/b. Anuj Jhaveri for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Venkataraman N., ASG a/w. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the
Respondent.


                         CORAM       : G. S. KULKARNI &
                                      SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

                         DATE        : 07 AUGUST, 2024
P. C.

1. We have heard Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. Venkataraman, learned ASG on the present

proceedings. The proceedings were listed for admission and

interim reliefs.

2. During the course of hearing, issues of interpretation of

Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), more

particularly, sub-section (1), sub-section (4) and sub-section (13)

of Section 144C of the Act vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 153 of

the Act falls for consideration of the Court. The issue being,

07 August, 2024 Aarti Palkar

901.WPL.30944.2023-F.doc

whether the provisions of Section 153 prescribing time limit for

completion of assessment, re-assessment and re-computation apply

to the proceedings under Section 144C of the Act which provide

for cases where a reference may be made to the dispute resolution

panel.

3. On such provisions a decision is rendered by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.1, wherein a view is

taken that the limitation as prescribed where Section 153 applies

to the proceedings under Section 144C. Also there is one more

decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The

Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. M/s. Roca Bathroom

Products Private Limited2 taking a similar view. Both these

decisions were referred to and relied on behalf of the parties.

There was quite a debate at the bar on such decision and what one

is permitted to do with it.

4. We were informed that the decision of this Court in Shelf

Drilling (supra) is assailed by the Revenue before the Supreme

Court. On such proceedings, on 22 September, 2023 the Supreme

Court while issuing notice has passed the following order:-

1 (2023)457 ITR 161 (Bom) 2 (2022) 445 ITR 537 (Mad)

07 August, 2024 Aarti Palkar

901.WPL.30944.2023-F.doc

"Issue notice to the respondents.

We have perused learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel Shri. J.D. Mistri for the respondent-assessee.

Having heard the respective senior counsel for the parties, we observe that the impugned judgment shall not be cited as a precedent in any other subsequent matter until further orders. We also clarify that the operative portion of the judgment shall apply only insofar as the respondents herein are in question."

(emphasis supplied)

5. On behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Venkataraman, the learned

ASG has made elaborate submissions. He has also placed on

record written submissions. It is Mr.Venkataraman's endeavour to

persuade us as to what would be the actual purport of the

provisions of Section 144C read with Section 153 and Section

92CA of the Act to contend that as the provisions stand, a different

view is required to be taken by the Court than what was held by

the Court in the case of Shelf Drilling (supra). It is submitted that

if the Court is persuaded with such contentions as made on behalf

of the Revenue so as to form a different view of the matter than

what has been decided by this Court in Shelf Drilling (supra), then

a reference on the question of law be made to be decided by a

larger bench on such issue of law which have arisen despite

pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in Shelf

Drilling (supra) as arising against the orders passed by this Court.

07 August, 2024 Aarti Palkar

901.WPL.30944.2023-F.doc

6. It is informed that the proceedings not only in Shelf Drilling

(supra), but in several other cases arising from orders passed by

the different High Courts on the same issue, are pending

consideration before the Supreme Court. The orders passed by the

Supreme Court issuing notice in such proceedings, are also placed

on record. It is on such complexion, the proceedings were argued

before us.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we reserve

appropriate orders to be passed on the present proceedings.

8. Ad-interim orders passed earlier, shall continue to operate

till we pass further appropriate orders.

                                [SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]                             [ G. S. KULKARNI, J. ]





Designation: PS To Honourable Judge                                   07 August, 2024
Date: 08/08/2024 21:28:05       Aarti Palkar