In W.P. Nos. 18420 & 18421 of 2023 -MADR HC- Madras High Court declines to interfere with rejection of stay applications filed by M/s. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd, advises petitioner to seek relief from Commissioner of Income Tax
Justice Anita Sumanth [23-06-2023]

Read Order: M/s. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1) CHE No.121 And Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, July 7, 2023: The High Court of Madras has declined to interfere with the rejection of stay applications filed by M/s. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited (petitioner). The court suggested that the petitioner should pursue their stay applications with the Commissioner of Income Tax to obtain the necessary orders of stay.

Factual background of the issue involved was that the petitioner had challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which rejected their applications for stay for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The rejection was based on the petitioner's failure to appear before the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The Assessing Officer had noted that if the petitioner had appeared, adverse assessment orders could have been avoided. According to the petitioner, they had amalgamated with Doosan Chennai Works Private Limited and had informed the Department about the amalgamation.

The court noted that the petitioner's PAN was active and that they had accessed their page on the Income Tax Department's portal. This indicated the petitioner's awareness of the ongoing proceedings.

The court further noted that the petitioner did not dispute being aware of the ongoing proceedings. However, the petitioner highlighted that the Department was also aware of the amalgamation, as evidenced by an order passed by the Assessing Authority for the subsequent assessment year. The bench suggested that it would have been more appropriate for the petitioner to have brought this matter to the attention of the Assessing Authority earlier.

“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…….let the petitioner pursue the same forthwith and obtain appropriate orders of stay,” thus, held the court.