High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed challenging the impugned order dated 9th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under section 270 AA (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner seeking immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that the case of the Petitioner did not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 270AA of the Act.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is barred by limitation in terms of Section 270 AA (4) of the Act, having been passed well beyond the period of one month from the end of the month in which the Petitioner had filed the application seeking immunity. It was submitted that in the instant case, all the facts, information, documents and figures submitted by the Petitioner had been accepted by the Respondents and the subject matter of dispute is a pure question of law, being interpretation of the contracts and the provisions of the Act & DTAA, for which there cannot be any allegation of "misreporting" of income on the part of the Petitioner.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 to contend that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 270AA of the Act.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court opined that the Respondents’ action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as in the penalty notice the Respondents have failed to specify the limb - "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated.
HC found that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary.
HC opined that the entire edifice of the assessment order framed by Respondent No.1 was actually voluntary computation of income filed by the Petitioner to buy peace and avoid litigation, which fact has been duly noted and accepted in the assessment order as well and consequently, there is no question of any misreporting.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the impugned action of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the avowed Legislative intent of Section 270AA of the Act to encourage/incentivize a taxpayer to (i) fast-track settlement of issue, (ii) recover tax demand; and (iii) reduce protracted litigation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.”
Case Title: Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd V. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 3 (1)(2), New Delhi and Ors.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Citation: W.P.(C) 5111/2022 & C.M.Nos.15165-15166/2022
Decided on: 28th March, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
