Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 263, 47(iv), 115-O - Indo-Singapore DTAA - The case concerns the transfer of equity shares by a Singapore-based entity to its wholly-owned Indian subsidiary. The transaction, valued at USD 1,397,263,241, was claimed as exempt from capital gains tax under Section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Indo-Singapore DTAA. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the exemption claim without detailed inquiries. The revisional authority invoked Section 263, alleging that the transaction was a sham intended to evade Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Section 115-O and that the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest - Whether the invocation of Section 263 was justified on grounds of the AO’s failure to conduct adequate inquiries and acceptance of a tax-exempt claim for a transaction alleged to be a sham and a tax avoidance scheme - HELD - The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the invocation of Section 263, holding that: Section 263 requires twin conditions–erroneous order and prejudice to Revenue–to be satisfied. These were not met in the case - The AO conducted inquiries, and the transaction was validly exempt under Section 47(iv). The revisional authority's allegation of tax avoidance did not establish that the AO’s order was erroneous - Any potential liability related to DDT would fall on the Indian subsidiary under Section 115-O, not on the Singapore-based entity. The revisional authority failed to establish how the alleged sham transaction prejudiced the Revenue concerning the non-resident entity - Mere inadequacy of inquiry does not justify revision unless a total lack of inquiry is proven. The Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the AO’s discretionary conclusion - The Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of the revisional order, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose. It affirmed that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, and the AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue
2024-VIL-244-DEL-DT
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9734-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA 103/2023
Dated: 11.12.2024
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2
Vs
GENPACT CONSULTING SINGAPORE PTE LTD
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs
For the Respondent: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Disha Jham, Ms. Soumya Singh and Mr. Devansh Jain, Advs.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGMENT
YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the judgment handed down by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] on 13 June 2022 and posits the following questions of law for our consideration: -
“A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is correct in holding that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law without appreciating the fact that no inquiries were made by the Ld. AO to ascertain the true nature of the transaction that was made in the grab of tax-exempted share transfer transaction?
B) Whether the Ld. ITAT is correct in holding that the proceeding u/s 263 of Act is bad in law without appreciating the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holding BV (1 SCR573) (2012) stating that a holistic approach should be taken instead of a transactional approach while deciding the tax liability of a non-resident?
C) Whether the Ld. ITAT is correct in facts and in the circumstances of the case by quashing the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act being not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue even though the facts indicate that the assessee has adopted a tax avoidance scheme for evasion of legitimate taxes in India?
D) Whether the Ld. ITAT is correct in ignoring the legal position that an order passed without making inquiries or verification shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in view of clause (a) of Explanation of 2 to section 263 of the I.T. Act?
E) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in quashing the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of "change in opinion" without appreciating the facts that in the absence of adequate enquires and gathering of relevant evidence including application of correct legal position, it is not possible to make an opinion and therefore, the argument of "change in opinion" is infructuous?
F) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in setting aside the order dated 31.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case?
G) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in ignoring the fact that this was a case of no inquiry/Lack of inquiry, hence the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue?”
2. From the facts which appear to be undisputed and are so recorded and reflected in the order of the Tribunal, we note as follows. We are concerned with Financial Year [FY] 2014-15, when the respondent-assessee, which was stated to be a tax resident of Singapore and held a valid Tax Residency Certificate [TRC], transferred 14,86,025 equity shares held in Genpact India to its wholly owned Indian subsidiary, Empower Research Knowledge Services Private Ltd. [Empower India] It is pertinent to note that Empower India is now known as Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. The sale of the shares was for a total consideration of USD 1,397,263,241/- and was affected in two tranches, on 28 January 2015 and 25 March 2015.
3. The Tribunal also refers to the present respondent-assessee at different places by the name with which it was earlier known, namely, Headstrong Consulting Pte. Ltd. It has proceeded to observe that the transfer by Headstrong Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Limited [HCS] of the shares held in Genpact India was asserted by the assessee to amount to the transfer of a capital asset as contemplated under Section 247 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act]. However, it was its case that in view of the exemption embodied in Section 47(o) of the Act, the aforesaid was not liable to be considered as a transfer for the purposes of computation of capital gains, since Empower India was a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of HCS. It is this position as struck by the assessee which came to be accepted by the Assessing Officer [AO].
4. The Commissioner, however, chose to invoke its revisional power as conferred by Section 263 of the Act, since in its opinion the view as taken by the AO was wholly erroneous quite apart from being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 31 March 2021, which purports to be under Section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner has observed as follows: -
“3. The AO has accepted the returned income declared by the assessee without conducting basic enquiries like asking for the upstream/downstream structure of the Genpact group and without ascertaining the source of the money used to carry out the said transactions. Since the shares transfer transactions were between two group entities even the purpose for carrying out such transactions with huge flow of funds between group entities located within different territorial jurisdictions was not enquired into. These transactions were carried out between the group entities as part of grand lax avoidance Scheme designed by the Genpact group however the AO did not make any enquiries to find out the true nature of the transactions. The CASS reasons for which case was selected through CASS system was with the reasons „Large International Transactions‟. AO did not make any enquiry to find out the real character and real purpose of this transaction where huge amount was remitted out of India under the garb of share transfers between two group entities. The AO also did not ask for Share Purchase Agreement to verify the claims of the assessee. Though the assessee provided the Share valuation report, however, the AO failed to refer the report to valuer to check the veracity of the claims, and thus, accepted the valuation report on face value Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd. has shown short term Capital Gain income amounting to Rs. 84,85,53,83,465/- and has claimed this as exempt income u/s 47(iv) and Indo-Singapore DTAA. The AO has not examined the transaction in detail and even the basic facts were not examined and thus AO accepted the exempt income claim of the assesse i.e. exempt short term Capital Gain income amounting to Rs.64,85,53,83,445/- which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.”
5. Proceeding further to analyze the transaction itself, it has rendered the following observations: -
“In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that the assessee is not being denied the benefits of any treaty or of section 47(iv) of the IT Act. The assessee has camouflaged/misrepresented the facts of its case because of which the whole transaction is being denied. The Genpact group through the transaction in question has created fictitious liability in the accounts of Empower Research Knowledge Services Pvt. Ltd. effectively increasing bogus expenses and taking out money as principal repayment of an artificial liability, which should have gone to the holding company as dividend after paying tax. There is a huge difference between denying the benefits of a treaty on the basis of camouflaging/misrepresentation of facts and denying the benefits on the basis of underlying motives of tax avoidance. While all the case laws quoted above deal with denying the benefit on the basis of motives, the benefits in the current case are being denied on the basis of camouflaging/misrepresentation of facts. In this regard the reliance is placed on noting of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT vs Redington (India) Ltd. T C A Nos. 590 & 591 of 2019 which are as under:
"...There can be no quarrel to the proposition that the assessing authorities have to look into all the circumstances under which the transaction took place. The authorities are required to examine as well as the Tribunal and Court as to whether the assessee had adopted any ingineous method to avoid taxation. Therefore, the authorities as well as the Courts and Tribunals are entitled to go behind the veil to examine the real intention of the parties in effecting transactions to come to a conclusion. ..."
Notwithstanding the above fact, even if the assessee chooses to see this order as denying the benefits available under the DTAA and the Act, the undersigned would like to quote from the judgement of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted as under:
"In the application of a judicial anti-avoidance rule the Revenue may invoke the "Substance over form" principle or “piercing the corporate veil” lest only after it is able to establish on the basis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction that the impugned transaction is a sham or tax avoidant. To give an example, if a structure is used for circular trading or round tripping or to pay bribes then such transactions, though having a legal form, should be discarded by applying the test of fiscal nullity. Similarly, in a case where the Revenue finds that in a Holding Structurean entity which has no commercial/business substance has been interposed only to avoid tax then in such cases applying the test of fiscal nullity it would be open to the Revenue to discard such inter-positioning of that entity.”
Thus, as has been proved above, that the transaction entered by the Genpact group was a sham transaction, therefore, there was no capital gain which can satisfy the "substance over form' principal.
(viii) As per the assessee's contention no. (xi& xiv) above, the assessee has claimed that the undersigned has initiated proceeding under section 263 to make fishing and roving inquiries. The assessee has quoted various case laws like Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd v. ITO, CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, CIT vs Anil Kumar Sinha, etc. The crux of all these cases is that it is only in cases of “lack of inquiry”, and not "inadequate inquiry”, that would give the right or occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under section 263 of the Act.
In this regard the undersigned would title to point out that fishing and roving inquiry refers to asking questions which are not at all connected with the subject matter. As such the assessee is advised to go through the showcause notice once again. The exact nature of the transaction, how the AO failed to make relevant enquiries regarding it and how the order passed by the AO was erroneous as far as being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has all been enunciated in the showcause notice. Some of the excerpts from the show cause notice are reproduced as under:
“The transaction for transfer of shares defy any logical support from the financials of the company. The AO has failed to examine the supporting valuation report.''
“With the above observations in mind, it is without doubt that the then AO failed to make the required enquiries. The AO failed to ask for the upstream/downstream structure of the group.
The AO has also failed to make any enquiry about the huge STCG claimed by the assessee in such short period of time. The AO also did not ask for Share Purchase Agreement to verity the claims of the assessee.
Though the assessee provided the Share valuation report, however, it did not correspond to the transaction date. The AO also failed to refer the report to valuer to check the veracity of the claims, and thus, accepted the valuation report on face value without minimum necessary verification and enquiry.
Without asking the above mentioned questions, the AO failed to perform due diligence and thus, passed the order without making necessary enquiry.”
Therefore, as is clear from the above, there was lack of enquiry on the part of AO and not just „inadequate enquiry‟. As discussed above the AO did not make any enquiry for revealing the true character and real purpose of the transaction and accepted the claim of the assessee which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Moreover by raising these baseless objections, the assessee is stymieing the law to take its course, so that justice can prevail.”
6. However, of significance are the following conclusions which appear in that order: -
“It is noticeable from the above that Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd was holding 94.7% shareholding of Genpact India and 5.3% of the shareholding was with another group entity Genpact India Holding Mauritius before the execution of tax avoidance scheme. After the execution of tax avoidance scheme on 25.03.2015. Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd. is holding 100% shares of the Genpact India amalgamated entity now known as Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. 100% Shareholding of Genpact India before and after the share transfer transaction is with the Genpact Group Entities only. However, these sham transaction have created an artificial liability in the balance sheet of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. which under the garb of paying principal payment and interest payment is eroding the reserve and surplus without paying dividends distribution tax. Furthermore, the interest expense claimed on an artificial liability (funds were never used in the business of Genpact India now merged with Genpact India Pvt. Ltd) is also reducing the taxable profits of Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. year after year starting from financial year 2014-15 and thus the interest payment on artificial liability cannot be allowed as business expense under the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. Payment of interest on artificial liability is resulting in lowering of business profits and thus lowering of effective rate of tax.
It is surprising that an entity has to bear the liability to pay the funds alongwith interest without having got any benefits or utilized the borrowed funds. This clearly indicates that it is an colourable device to avoid paying taxes in India.
• After amalgamation of ERKS with Genpact India. the investments of ERKS into the shares of Genpact India amounting to Rs.9,131,72,51,438/- has been taken to goodwill account in newly formed entity ERKS n k aGenpact India Pvt. Ltd.
• If, Genpact India now merged into ERKS, had to declare dividend to the holding companies/share holders i.e. Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pvt Ltd then as per Income Tax Act and India Singapore Treaty. Empower Research Knowledge Services Pvt Ltd. (ERKS) was required to pay Dividend Distribution Tax and then make payments.
iv Genpact Global Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd as common Holding Company of both payer of funds in the form of debenture (Genpact Luxembourg SARL) and receiver of funds in the form of Capital Gain (Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pte): It is pertinent to mention here that as per annual report of Genpact India Pvt Ltd (ERKS) and ITR of Genpact Luxembourg SARL both have a common holding company namely Genpact Global Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. This aspect clearly establishes that it was circulation of funds between two entities of a common holding company just to create a fictitious liability in the balance sheet of Genpact India which had multifarious tax benefits.”
7. As is manifest from the above, the Commissioner appears to have taken the view that the transfer of shares was clearly a sham and a colourable device and that it was Genpact India‟s motive to avoid the payment of a Dividend Distribution Tax [DDT] under Section 115-O of the Act. On the basis of the aforenoted significant conclusions, the Commissioner came to form the opinion that the view rendered by the AO would merit correction under Section 263.
8. This led to the respondent-assessee approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, while dealing with the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee, essentially come to hold that in the absence of the Commissioner having come to conclude that the AO had failed to undertake the requisite inquiry as contemplated, there was no justification for the assessment order being revised. It has ultimately taken note of the precedents rendered on the scope of the power which stands placed in the hands of the Commissioner by virtue of Section 263 and has come to the firm conclusion that the Order-in-Revision was clearly unsustainable. It has, while dealing with these aspects observed as follows: -
“26. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 has held as under:
“The power of suo motu revision under subsection (1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. It has, therefore, to be considered firstly as to when an order can be said to be erroneous. We find that the expressions "erroneous", "erroneous assessment" and "erroneous judgment" have been defined in Black's Law Dictionary. According to the definition, "erroneous” means "involving error; deviating from the law". "Erroneous assessment" refers to an assessment that deviates from the law and is, therefore, invalid, and is a defect that is jurisdictional in its nature, and does not refer to the judgment of the Assessing Officer in fixing the amount of valuation of the property. Similarly, “erroneous judgment” means “one rendered according to course and practice of court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law; or upon erroneous application of legal principles”.
12. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the Income-tax Officer. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the Incomer-tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, then also the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There must be some prima facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held what is erroneous. It must be an order which is not in accordance with the law or which has been passed by the Income-tax Officer without making any enquiry in undue haste. We have also held as to what is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order can be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue if it is not in accordance with the law in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. There must be material available on the record called for by the Commissioner to satisfy him prima facie that the aforesaid two requisites are present. If not, he has no authority to initiate proceedings for revision. Exercise of power of suo motu revision under such circumstances will amount to arbitrary exercise of power.
It is well-settled that when exercise of statutory power is dependent upon the existence of certain objective facts, the authority before exercising such power must have materials on record to satisfy it in that regard. If the action of the authority is challenged before the court it would be open to the courts to examine whether the relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority.
The Income-tax Officer in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The assessee had given detailed explanation in that regard by a letter in writing. All these are part of the record of the case. Evidently, the claim was allowed by the Income-tax Officer on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Moreover, in the instant case, the Commissioner himself, even after initiating proceedings for revision and hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous and that the expenditure was not revenue expenditure but an expenditure of capital nature. He simply asked the Income-tax Officer to re-examine the matter. That, in our opinion, is not permissible. Hence the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.
27. It is a settled position of law that powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revisional power be exercised for directing a fuller enquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous. This power of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay).”
9. Quite apart from the view which the Tribunal has come to express, we find that the order of the Commissioner is clearly rendered unsustainable on a more fundamental plane. As is evident from the extracts of the order passed in revision, the principal allegation appears to have been that the device adopted by Genpact India was intended to avoid the payment of DDT as contemplated under Section 115-O. Undisputedly, that dividend would have to be one which would have been declared by Genpact India. We are, however, and in the present case, concerned with an assessment proposed to be made in the hands of Headstrong HCS, now known as Genpact Consulting Pte. We thus find ourselves unable to appreciate how a perceived liability in the hands of Genpact India could be viewed or considered as being relevant for the purposes of formation of opinion that the assessment of Genpact Consulting was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.
10. Before us, the appellants have failed to establish that even if the view as expressed by the Commissioner were assumed to be correct, any additional tax liability would have been foisted upon Genpact Consulting.
11. We take note of an identical position which obtained in the case of Genpact Luxembourg S.A.R.L. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi and Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 5514] and which had assailed the initiation of Section 148 proceedings. Dealing with identical allegations which had come to be levelled against that assessee, we had while allowing that writ petition observed as follows: -
“9. As is evident from a reading of the initial notice under Section 148A(b), the respondents had taken the stand that the interest income derived from the NCDs floated by GIPL had not been appropriately offered to tax on account of mischaracterization of income. By the time the Section 148A(d) order came to be passed, the respondents sought to buttress their case of proposed reassessment on an order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the CIT (IT) in the case of Headstrong Consulting Singapore Pte. Ltd. The principal allegation now laid was that although the funds were taken out in the form of interest payments, they were in fact liable to be declared as dividend and subjected to DDT.
10. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Jolly had contended that there is an evident and manifest variation between the reasons which had been originally recorded in the notice dated 11 March 2022 and the final order passed by the respondents disposing of the objections of the petitioner on 29 March 2022.
11. The ineffaceable connect which must exist between the reasons initially disclosed proposing reassessment and which constitute the basis for formation of opinion with respect to escapement of income and the final decision to commence reassessment, was an aspect which was duly highlighted by us in our judgment in ATS Infrastructure Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1). We had in that decision observed as follows: –
xxxx xxxx xxxx
12. Quite apart from the above, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed on a more fundamental ground. Undisputedly, the petitioner had offered the interest income to tax in terms of the provisions contained in Section 194LD of the Act. The ultimate order under Section 148A(d), however, alleges that the remittance in fact, constituted dividend and which was liable to be taxed in terms of Section 115-O of the Act.
13. Section 115-O, insofar as it is relevant for our purposes, is extracted hereinbelow: –
xxxx xxxx xxxx
14. As is plainly evident from a reading of that provision, DDT is liable to be paid by the company which declares, distributes or pays the same. The petitioner herein was merely the recipient of the interest income and it was thus, clearly not the entity which had either declared or paid the dividend. Viewed in that context, even if the payment were to be assumed to be dividend, the liability to pay tax thereon could have only been foisted upon the company which had declared, distributed or paid the same. That in the facts of the present case and even if the allegation laid by the respondents were to be accepted would have been GIPL.
15. We also note that the issues emanating from the order of the CIT (IT) under Section 263 of the Act presently forms subject matter of challenge in Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 v. Genpact Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd. (Earlier known as Headstrong Consulting Pte. Ltd.). While issues relating to the merits and the validity of the view taken by the CIT (IT) would have to be examined in that pending appeal, the same would clearly not sustain the action for reassessment which is impugned herein.
16. We accordingly allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) dated 11 March 2022, impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated 29 March 2022 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 dated 30 March 2022.”
On an overall conspectus of the above, we find no justification to interfere with the ultimate view as expressed by the Tribunal.
12. The appeal fails to raise any substantial question of law. It shall consequently stand dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that publisher is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.