Karnataka High Court
M/S Redington Distribution Pvt. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 2 February, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.30344/2019 (T-IT)
BETWEEN:
M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.,
NO.60, ROBINSON ROAD,
#12-02, BEA BUILDING
SINGAPORE - 068 892
REP. BY ITS HEAD OF
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS
P.S. JAYAPRAKASH. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIKRAM, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VANAJA M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET-TAX
(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-2(1)
6TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED
17.12.2018 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH 147 & 144 THE
ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of
certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the
respondent dated 17.12.2018 under Section 143 (3) r/w
147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for
short) for the assessment year 2010-11 and has sought for
other appropriate reliefs.
2. The petitioner is stated to be a private company
incorporated under the laws of Singapore and has received
certain consideration for the sale of software/licences
relating to development of software from M/s.Wipro
Limited. It is further submitted that as the petitioner
bonafide believed that it was not taxable in India, it did not
file return of income for the assessment year 2010-11.
However, it is stated that the respondent has construed the
payments to be royalty and was of the stand that the
income of the petitioner was to be treated as escaped
income for the assessment year 2010-11 and has issued
notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. The petitioner submits that it has not received such
notice nor further notice. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had received only notice dated 05.09.2018 sent
to the Holding Company M/s. Redington (India) Limited for
which petitioner has replied and furnished correct address.
4. It is submitted that the stand of the Assessing
Officer was on the basis of the judgment of this court in CIT
v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 209
and that in light of the latest judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of
Excellence (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
reported in [2021] 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) the
matter requires to be relooked into.
5. Taking note of the plea of the petitioner that fresh
opportunity needs to be given and also the contention
regarding latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Engineering Analysis Centre (supra), without entering
into the merits of the issue, it would meet the ends of
justice in setting aside the order at Annexure-'B' and
restoring the proceedings to the stage immediately after
post-issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
6. Accordingly, the assessment order at Annexure-'B'
is set aside. The matter is relegated as observed above.
The petitioner is at liberty to participate in the proceedings
and raise all further contentions available to the petitioner
including regarding position of law as emanating from the
case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P)
Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2021]
125 taxmann.com 42 (SC).
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to
the above observations. All contentions of the parties are
kept open.
8. The petitioner undertakes to file the return
pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. If the
same is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of
release of this order, the same could be taken as filed within
time.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off, in light of
the discussion made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Np/-
