Case Law Details
CIT Vs Authority for Advance Ruling (Delhi High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the question raised in the notice under Section 143(2) can be stated to be ‘pending’ to attract clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act?
In the present case, the petitioner i.e CIT argues that since the questions raised in the Application before the AAR were already pending before the Assessing Officer, the AAR was barred from assuming jurisdiction in view of the threshold bar enshrined in clause (i) under Proviso to section 245 R (2) of the Act.
High Court states that the notice under section 143(2) merely asks the applicant to produce any evidence on which it may like to rely in support of its return. It does not even remotely disclose any application of mind to the return filed by the applicant. For this reason, AAR has held that that question cannot be said to be pending to attract the bar under clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Act. It is also pertinent note that the Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgments of the Division Benches have been dismissed. Consequently, the issues of law and fact raised by the learned counsel for petitioners are no longer res integra. HC do not any infirmity in the approach adopted by the AAR. HC are therefore not inclined so as to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 and entertain the present petition to take a different view. Hence, the petition filed is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
