Stay Granted on Tax Collection Order Amid Potential Justice Breaches; Case Set for Further Hearing.

The HC issued a stay on the operation of the impugned order and notices concerning the failure to collect withholding tax and the upward adjustment by the TPO, pending further examination. The court acknowledged potential breaches of natural justice principles due to the AO's actions and scheduled the case for the next hearing, directing parties to adhere to the digitally signed order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to collect withholding tax on remittances made to an Associated Enterprise.
2. Upward adjustment by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in scrutiny assessment proceedings.
3. Allegations of flawed reassessment proceedings under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Allegations of breach of principles of natural justice due to non-addressal of request for response time by Assessing Officer (AO).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition pertains to the Assessment Year 2018-19 regarding the failure to collect withholding tax on remittances made to an Associated Enterprise, specifically Avery Dennison Corporation (USA). The petitioner remitted Rs. 5,54,85,253/- to Avery Dennison Corporation during the Financial Year 2017-18 without deducting tax at the source.

2. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, an upward adjustment of Rs. 82,87,90,616/- was made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It was highlighted that the remittance amount subject to reassessment was already included in this upward adjustment amount.

3. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the entire foreign outward remittance amount is income chargeable to tax as it allegedly escaped assessment. However, the petitioner's representative argued that this assertion seems flawed based on the submissions made during the proceedings.

4. Concerns were raised regarding the AO not addressing the petitioner's request for additional time to respond to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The AO proceeded to pass the order under Section 148A(d) the day after the request, potentially leading to a breach of principles of natural justice, which will be further examined in subsequent hearings.

5. The court noted the need for a more in-depth examination of the matter and issued notices to the concerned parties. The respondents/revenue accepted the notice, and timelines were set for filing counter-affidavits and rejoinders. The case was scheduled for the next hearing date, with a stay on the operation of the impugned order and notices until then. Parties were instructed to act based on a digitally signed copy of the order issued.

---