Delhi High Court
Cl Products India Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5 1 Delhi & ... on 26 August, 2022
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12123/2022, CM APPL. 36240-41/2022
CL PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Mahajan & Mr. Abhimanyu
Goel, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 1
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue, Mr. Vipul
Agrawal & Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr.
Standing Counsels for Revenue.
% Date of Decision: 26th August, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
CM APPL. 36241/2022 (exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12123/2022 & CM APPL. 36240/2022 (for interim relief)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice
dated 22nd July, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 ['the Act'] as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the
Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 30th July,
W.P.(C) 12123/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:29.08.2022
19:40:32
2022 for the Assessment Year 2013 - 14.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that show cause notice had
been issued to the Petitioner on 22nd July, 2022 and only three days' time
was given to the Petitioner to file reply. He also states that the information
had been sent to the Petitioner on the email
ID [email protected] despite being fully aware that the same was not
being used by the Petitioner anymore.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner had
approached this Court in W.P.(C) 4703/2022 challenging an order dated
1st January, 2021 passed under Section 127 of the Act transferring the
jurisdiction of the Petitioner from Delhi to Jammu without issuing the
required notice. He states that this Court vide order dated 31st May, 2022 has
granted a stay on the operation on the impugned order passed under Section
127 of the Act. He states that since the Petitioner has challenged the transfer
of jurisdiction of the Petitioner, it is not clear which State has jurisdiction
over the assessment of the Petitioner. He further states that despite this, the
Respondents have issued various notices to the Petitioner without giving it
adequate time to respond.
4. This Court is of the view that in law there cannot be a vaccum. As the
order transferring jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act has been stayed
by this Court, the initial Assessing Officer in Delhi will continue to exercise
the jurisdiction over the Petitioner/Assessee. Consequently, the show cause
notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the impugned order
issued by the Assessing Officer are within jurisdiction. However, as the
Petitioner has been given only three days' time to file reply to the show
cause notice instead of minimum notice of seven days as stipulated under
W.P.(C) 12123/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:29.08.2022
19:40:32
Section 148A(b) of the Act, the impugned order dated 30th July, 2022 is set
aside.Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause
notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act within two weeks and the
Assessing Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with
law within six weeks thereafter.
5. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition along with pending
application stands disposed of. It is clarified that the rights and contentions
of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 26, 2022/msh
W.P.(C) 12123/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:29.08.2022
19:40:32
