Delhi High Court
Interglobe Aviation Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 28 April, 2022
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6405/2022 & CM APPL.19411/2022
INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate with
Mrs. Husnal Syali Nagi, Mr. Tarun
Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 (1)
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 28th April, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 30th
March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for
short 'Act'). Petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the Respondent
from proceeding with or giving effect to the impugned notice during the
pendency of the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner received
notice dated 11th March, 2022 under Section 148A(b) which directed the
Petitioner to file its response by 17th March, 2022. He states that on 17th
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2022
10:03:01
March, 2022, the Petitioner filed a plea seeking fifteen days additional time
to submit its reply. He states that the petitioner proceeded to file its detailed
response on 29th March, 2022. He contends that in the impugned order dated
30th March, 2022 the Revenue has failed to consider the reply dated 29th
March, 2022 and erroneously noted that no reply had been filed by the
Petitioner.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
Respondent. He states that the Petitioner by way of its letter dated 17th
March, 2022 had sought fifteen days time to respond from the date of the
notice i.e. 11th March, 2022.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the whole controversy revolves around the request for extension of time
made by the Petitioner vide letter dated 17th March, 2022. The relevant
portion of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"...In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the
Assessee requires additional time to respond to the
attached notice. Hence, your goodself is requested to
allow us 15 days time to respond.
(emphasis supplied)"
6. This Court is of the view that since the Petitioner had sought fifteen
days additional time to respond, it would mean fifteen days from 17th March,
2022. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 as well as
consequential notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the
Act are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to
consider and decide the petitioner's objections dated 29th March, 2022 in
accordance with law within eight weeks.
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2022
10:03:01
7. With the aforesaid the present writ petition and application stand
disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of
the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
APRIL 28, 2022
AS
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.05.2022
10:03:01
