ASI GD Gena Ram Dhaka Vs Union of India and ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decision delivered on: 10.05.2021

W.P.(C) 5234/2021, CM Nos. 16065-67/2021

KBB NUTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advcate with
Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Aniket D.
Agrawal, Advocates.

versus

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI
(EARLIER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI) &
ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior
Standing Counsel for revenue

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

CM No. 16066/2021

1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner curing the deficiencies referred to in the captioned application within three days of this Court resuming its normal functioning.

CM No. 16067/2021

2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5234/2021, CM No. 16065/2021

3. Issue notice.

3.1. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, who appears on advance notice, accepts service on behalf of the respondents.

3.2 In view of the order that we propose to pass, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra says, she does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and that she will proceed on the basis of the record presently made available with the Court.

4. The instant writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 22.04.2021, passed by respondent no. 1, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The impugned assessment order concerns the assessment year (in short „AY‟) 2017-2018. Furthermore, the petitioner also seeks setting aside of the notice of demand of even date, i.e., 22.04.2021, issued under Section 156 of the Act, as well as the notice of the same date issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 270A and 271 AAC (1) of the Act.

4.1 Briefly, the grievance articulated and the assertions made on the behalf of the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The petitioner claims that the return of income for the concerned AY, i.e., 2017-2018 was filed on 30.11.2017, and that thereupon, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by respondent no. 2. This notice, according to the petitioner, was issued on 26.09.2018.

(ii) The said notice, the petitioner claims, was followed by a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, on 16.10.2019. The petitioner avers that a reply to the said notice was filed, via the designated e-portal, on 07.12.2019.

(iii) Evidently, the petitioner‟s case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short „TPO‟) under Section 92 CA (1) of the Act. 

To know more in details find the attachment file