Delhi High Court
Pcj Securities Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer,Ward 19(1) ... on 4 May, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6415/2022 & CM APPL. 19427/2022
PCJ SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Somil Agarwal and Mr. Anshul
Mittal, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 19(1) DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Advocate with
Mr. Tushar Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
% Date of Decision: 04th May, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
dated 30th March, 2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment Center,
Delhi under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and demand notice dated 30th
March, 2022.
2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
20:47:40
stated that the facts and figures mentioned in the impugned assessment order
dated 30th March, 2022 do not pertain to the petitioner.
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the
petitioner never claimed depreciation of Rs.13,42,354/- in its return of
income tax as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice and in the Assessment
Order. He states that only a depreciation of Rs.2,50,425/- was claimed by
the petitioner. He also states that the demand raised vide demand notice
dated 30th March, 2022 of Rs.2,32,08,308/- is patently incorrect and has no
nexus with the addition made.
4. He further states that the petitioner is assessed at Delhi whereas the
Show Cause Notice dated 29th March, 2022 and the Assessment Order dated
30th March, 2022 mention that Principal Commissioner, Shillong, despite
having no jurisdiction, had accorded approval.
5. Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue fairly
admits that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. He, on
instructions, states that the matter be remanded back to the Assessing
Officer for de novo assessment in accordance with law.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid concession as well as the fact that the
facts and figures mentioned in the impugned order do not pertain to the
petitioner, the present matter is allowed and the impugned Assessment Order
as well as demand notice dated 30th March, 2022 are quashed.
7. If the law permits the respondent-revenue to take further steps in the
matter, it shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such
steps are taken and if the petitioner has a grievance, it shall be at liberty to
take its remedies in accordance with law.
8. This Court is actually surprised that despite an elaborate mechanism
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
20:47:40
of checks and balances and multiple authorities like (assessment units,
verification units, technical units, review units, Regional Faceless
Assessment Centres and National Faceless Assessment Centre) being set up
under Section 144B of the Act, such glaring mistakes can happen. This
Court is also of the view that faceless assessment does not mean that no
responsibility can be fixed for passing such an erroneous order.
9. The PCIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre is directed to be
more cautious while passing the Assessment Orders and the CBDT is
directed to ensure that such glaring mistakes do not occur in the future.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue is directed to forward a
copy of this Order to the Chairman, CBDT and the PCIT, National Faceless
Assessment Centre.
MANMOHAN, J
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
MAY 4, 2022
js
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
20:47:40
