Quashing of notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgement reserved on 08.03.2021
Judgement pronounced on 05.07.2021

W.P.(C) 10939/2018 and CM No. 42617/2018

M/S ESS ADVERTISING (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE
(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S ESPN STAR SPORTS MAURITIUS
S.N.C.ET COMPAGNIE) .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr. Divesh
Chawla, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(2),
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing
Counsel.

W.P.(C) 10940/2018 and CM No. 42619/2018
M/S ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE
 .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr. Divesh
Chawla, Advocates.

 versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1(2)(2),
INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing
Counsel.

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

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J:

Preface:

1. These writ petitions are directed against separate but identical orders. The orders impugned bear the same date and content. The first writ petition has been filed by ESS Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C Et Compagnie (Earlier Known as ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. Et Compagnie) [hereafter referred to as “ESSA”] while the second writ petition has been filed by ESS Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie [in short “ESSD”]. However, ESSA and ESSD will collectively be referred to as petitioners unless the context requires otherwise.

2. The impugned orders, passed in the instant matters, concern the following:

i. orders containing reasons, dated 20.03.2018, based on which the Assessing Officer [in short “A.O.”] issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “Act”] dated 29.03.2018;

ii. notices dated 29.03.2018, issued under Section 148 of the Act; and

iii. orders dated 24.09.2018, whereby the objections filed by the petitioners to the impugned reasons were disposed of by the AO.

3. Since the facts in both cases are similar, the above-captioned writ petitions are being disposed of via a common judgement.

3.1. The aforementioned orders concern the assessment year [in short “A.Y.”] 2013-2014.

3.2. Before we set forth the core issues, which arise for consideration, in the above-captioned writ petitions, which are similar, it would be convenient, to outline, in detail, the facts and circumstances obtaining in one of the writ petitions, i.e., W.P. (C) 10939/2018 instituted by ESSA. We may note that counsel for the parties were agreed that the decision in W.P. (C) 10939/2018 would apply mutatis mutandis to the other writ petition as well, i.e., W.P. (C) 10940/2018.

To know more in details find the attachment file