MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18 October 2024 Judgment pronounced on 21 February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 9786/2016 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni and Mr. Udit Naresh, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr. Sushant Pandey, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. The writ petitioner impugns the reassessment action initiated by the respondent under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 19611 pertaining to Assessment Year2 2009-10. From the disclosures which are made in the writ petition, we find that although the petitioner is stated to have made appropriate disclosures along with the Return of Income3 including the filing of an Audit Report, Form No. 3CEB and a Tax Audit Report, the original RoI was subsequently revised declaring income of INR 12,62,60,79,909/-. The RoI was duly examined under 1 Act 2 AY 3 RoI Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9786/2016 Page 1 of 54 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:21.02.2025 17:55:50 Section 143(3) read along with Section 144C of the Act and a final assessment order came to be passed on 02 January 2014 whereby the Assessing Officer4 computed the total taxable income at INR 20,71,04,18,575/-. 2. Undisputedly, 31 March 2016 constituted the last date by which a reassessment action for AY 2009-10 could have been initiated in terms of the timelines provided in Section 149. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the notice under Section 148, however, came to be issued only on 01 April 2016. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that one of the principal