Amazon Web Services Inc Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Summary: Delhi High Court disposed of Amazon Web Services Inc.’s writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, principally on the ground of change of opinion. The petitioner submitted that its assessment had earlier been completed under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) by an order dated 26.12.2025 after considering transactions aggregating to Rs. 29,66,29,69,168 and accepting its returned income. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148A(1) on 31.03.2026 alleging escapement of income with reference to three transactions. The information comprised remittances of Rs. 54,40,572, Rs. 26,66,29,69,168 and Rs. 19,17,77,24,603. The petitioner contended that the first two transactions formed part of the earlier assessment and that the third had also been subjected to scrutiny in proceedings under Section 201.
The Revenue submitted that the earlier assessment considered Rs. 29,66,29,69,168 whereas the amount reflected on the Risk Management Strategy portal was Rs. 45,84,61,34,343. According to the Revenue, the petitioner had failed to furnish satisfactory reconciliation details. The petitioner, on the other hand, characterized the reassessment exercise as a fishing and roving enquiry and maintained that its global income had already been assessed. The Court found that the dispute or confusion essentially arose from reconciliation of figures appearing on the Risk Management Strategy portal with those in the earlier assessment and the payee’s order under Section 201. It observed that the situation appeared to have arisen because the information/details were not furnished to the petitioner along with the Section 148A(1) notice and because of the limited inquiry undertaken by the AO while deciding the objections under Section 148A(3).
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed under Section 148A(3) and the consequential Section 148 notice dated 27.06.2026, restoring the matter to the stage of the Section 148A(1) notice. The AO was directed to supply the information/details referred to in the notice dated 31.03.2026 within seven days. The petitioner was permitted two weeks thereafter to file an additional reply with documents. The AO was directed to provide a personal hearing and pass a fresh order after considering the written reply and oral submissions. Significantly, the Court expressly refrained from recording any finding on the correctness or legality of initiation of reassessment proceedings. Both sides’ contentions were therefore left open, and the petitioner’s right to take further legal recourse was reserved.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961’), on various grounds, but mainly on the ground of change of opinion.
2. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the facts of the case and submitted that the petitioner’s assessment was made under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act of 1961, vide order dated 26.12.2025 taking into consideration transaction of Rs. 29,66,29,69,168. He added that after examining all aspects of the matter, including the nature of transaction and receipts, the petitioner’s returned income was accepted.
3. He submitted that yet, the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued a notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 on 31.03.2026, alleging that the income has escaped assessment while making reference of three transactions, which are reproduced hereunder:
| S. No | Information Received From | Information Description | Information Source | Amount (in Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | WARD INT. TAX 3(1)(1), Delhi | Received foreign remittance u/s 195 from M/s TV Today Network Ltd. Without TDS | Form 15CA/CB | 54,40,572/- |
| 2. | WARD INT. TAX 1(1)(2), Delhi | Foreign Outward Remittance | Proceedings u/s 195(2) of the Act | 26,66,29,69,168/- |
| 3. | WARD INT. TAX 1(1)(1), Delhi | Foreign Outward Remittance | Verification of Form 15CC and (Non-Deduction of TDS by Indian Remitter transfer of information | 19,17,77,24,603/- |
4. While pointing out that the first two transactions form part of the same assessment which was made on the earlier occasion on 26.12.2025, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the third item of Rs. 19,17,77,24,603/- is part of order under Section 201 of the Act of 1961 passed in the case of petitioner’s prayer and, therefore, all the three transactions have been subjected to assessment and scrutiny by the AO.
5. He argued that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had furnished a satisfactory reply before the AO, she has cursorily rejected the petitioner’s objections and has decided to proceed against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
6. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that petitioner’s assessment was made after considering figure of Rs. 29,66,29,69,168/- only, whereas the amount reflected in Risk Management Strategy portal is Rs. 45,84,61,34,343/-. He asserted that in spite of the notice so issued, the petitioner gave an evasive and unsatisfactory reply and failed to provide details, tabulation/chart, etc., so as to enable reconciliation of the figures, so that the difference or discrepancy as noticed by the AO can be resolved/sorted.
7. Heard rival counsel.
8. The case set up by the petitioner is, that the AO is seeking to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry, in the guise proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, that too when the petitioner has already been assessed on its global income. According to the petitioner such exercise is impermissible in law, and the AO is proceeding on the basis of change of opinion.
9. Mr. Kaka further argued that since the petitioner has been assessed on global income in the previous assessment order, the petitioner’s remittance from India becomes irrelevant as the same in any case has been subjected to tax as part of global receipts.
10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the dispute rather confusion is on account of reconciliation of the figures, as found in Risk Management Strategy portal vis-a-vis the figures in the petitioner’s earlier assessment and its payee’s order under Section 201 of the Act of 1961.
11. It seems to have been caused due to non-furnishing of the details to the petitioner along with the notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 so also because of the limited time available with the AO. The limited inquiry which has been done by the AO at the stage of deciding objections under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 may also be a reason for the same.
12. We, therefore, dispose of the petition while setting aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 and consequential notice dated 27.06.2026, issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The case is restored to the stage of notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961.
13. The AO is directed to provide a copy of the information/details (as mentioned in notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961) dated 31.03.2026 to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from today. The petitioner shall be free to file an additional reply with documents within two weeks of the receipt of the information or details.
14. The AO shall thereafter fix a date of personal hearing and give audience to the petitioner’s authorised representative providing one or more opportunities of hearing (as deemed expedient) and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and oral submissions so made.
15. Needless to observe that we have not recorded any finding or made observation about correctness or legality of the initiation of the proceedings or otherwise. The petitioner shall, therefore, be free to put forth his case and the AO shall be equally free to take independent yet objective view of the matter, in accordance with law.
16. Petitioner’s right to take legal recourse, (in case necessary) shall stand reserved.
17. Petition with all pending applications stands disposed of.
