Case Law Details
Doosan power systems India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)
In a recent case of Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Madras High Court upheld the decision of the DCIT. The core dispute revolved around the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’s rejection of Doosan’s applications for stay under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. DCIT court argued that Doosan had not appeared before the National Faceless Assessment Centre, thus leading to the passing of adverse assessment orders.
HC further held that Since, the petitioner has moved the Commissioner of Income Tax by way of stay applications, let the petitioner pursue the same forthwith and obtain appropriate orders of stay.
HC directs Commissioner of Income Tax that, after hearing the petitioner, stay applications shall be disposed within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of High Court order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
1. Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arunkumar, learned Junior Standing Counel accepts notice for the respondents and is armed with necessary instructions to enable final disposal of these matters, even at the stage of admission.
2. The challenge is to orders dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 rejecting the applications for stay filed by the petitioner.
3. The necessity for stay applications arises from orders of reassessment for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18, that are subject matter of statutory appeals.
4. Reasons have been assigned for rejection of the stay and the Assessing Officer at paragraph 4 notes that the petitioner had not appeared before the National Faceless Assessment Centre and had there been appearance caused, the passing of adverse assessment orders could well have been avoided.
5. It is the petitioner’s case that, in fact, the petitioner has amalgated with one Doosan Chennai Works Private Limited and that the factum of amalgamation was intimated to the Department on 18.03.2016.
6. Be that as it may, the PAN of the petitioner appears to be active and it has also accessed its page on the portal of the Income Tax Department, as otherwise it would not have been aware of the present proceedings at all.
7. The petitioner also does not dispute the factum of it having been aware of the present proceedings, but would only point out the factum of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the Department as well, as an order has been passed on 29.03.2023 by the Assessing Authority for the subsequent assessment year, i.e., AY 2018-19 closing the proceedings on the ground of amalgamation.
8. It would have thus been appropriate had the petitioner brought this position to the notice of the Assessing Authority in order that it could have been taken note by him. That is what has been done, in fact, for assessment year 2018-19. At paragraph 2 of order dated 20.03.2023, the cooperation of the petitioner has been noticed.
9. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Since, the petitioner has moved the Commissioner of Income Tax by way of stay applications, which is placed at page 111 and 106 of the compilation respectively, let the petitioner pursue the same forthwith and obtain appropriate orders of stay.
10. As the Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai – 6000 034 is not arrayed as respondent in these Writ Petitions, the said authority is impleaded as R5. Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arun Kumar, learned Junior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the newly impleaded R5.
11. The stay applications, after hearing the petitioner, shall be disposed within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. These Writ Petitions are disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
