Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 144C

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Time limit after DRP directions and refund: The reported High Court ruling treats a final assessment made long after DRP directions as time-barred, with consequential acceptance/refund implications. Official text must provide the precise limitation provision and dates.

Material facts and background

REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15398 OF 2023 1.

Vodafone Idea Limited, (P.A. No.:AAACB2100P) (As successor to Vodafone Mobile-Services Ltd., P.A. No.:AAACS4457Q) having his address at 10th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Worli Colony, S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai – 400 030, Maharashtra, India.

Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 100.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-5(2)(2), Mumbai [now Circle-5(2)(1)] Mumbai, Room No. 571, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020.

Principal Chief Commissioner of Incometax, Room No. 321, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020.

Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b Mr. Jitendra Singh for Petitioner. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. Devvrat Singh, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav & Mr. Jagdish Choudhary for Respondents-Revenue.

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Court, a statement was made by Mr. Singh that because of the commencement of the Faceless Assessment Regime, the directions given by DRP were not received by the FAO and therefore, the FAO did not pass order under Section 144C(13) of the Act and DRP had forwarded the order to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”).

Per contra, Mr. Mistri showed us an e-mail dated 6th April 2021 addressed to Petitioner by “ITO HQ TO DRP2 WZ” forwarding a copy of the directions issued by the DRP. The said directions of DRP also form part of the attachment to the e-mail. This email being brought to our notice, we passed the following order/directions dated 1st August 2023 : “1 Mr. Singh states that because of the Faceless Assessment Regime being started, the directions given by DRP was not received by the Faceless Assessing Officer and, therefore, the Faceless Assessing Officer did not pass order under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Singh states that DRP had forwarded the order to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

4 Therefore, it will be more appropriate if the Chief Commissioner or Principal Chief Commissioner or whoever is the person heading the Dispute Resolution Panel files an affidavit explaining, inter alia, as to why when the Faceless Assessment Regime had already kicked in, DRP’s directions were sent to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of to the Faceless Assessing Officer. So also the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, who had received the directions of DRP, and it will be the same officer who was in that post when the directions were received and not any successor, shall file an affidavit explaining why he/she did not forward the directions of DRP to the concerned Faceless Assessing Officer particularly when, as Mr. Singh states, the Faceless Assessment Regime had begun. These affidavits shall be filed and copy served by 10th August 2023. 5

Court in the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2023 and accordingly, based on the record, I am conversant with the facts of the issue and I am able to depose the same. I respectfully say that I am filing this affidavit on the direction of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid order for the limited purpose of explaining as to why, when the Faceless Assessment Regime had already kicked in, DRP’s directions were sent to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereafter JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (hereafter FAO). 5. That the DRP passed directions (with DIN) on 25.03.2021 in the name of Vodafone Mobile Services Pvt. Ltd. (VMSL) (predecessor of Vodafone Idea Ltd.-VIL) by uploading the same on the Income Tax Bussiness Application System. A copy of the ITBA system generated noting/case history is hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-1. The DRP directions are automatically visible to FAO in the ITBA system, if any assessment work item is pending related to that particular PAN. 6. There is an additional feature on the ITBA system in the DRP segment from which communication through e-mail can be made through ITBA system. As precaution, the copy of direction was sent to...

portal. A perusal of the screenshot of CHN of DRP read with the affidavit filed by Mr. Satish Sharma, the CCIT and Ms. Anne Varghese, the JCIT, clearly indicate that once the DRP directions are uploaded and the Document Identification Number (“DIN”) is generated, which is also visible on the first page of the hard copy of DRP directions, the said document is visible to the AO of the Faceless Assessment Unit (“FAU”) having jurisdiction over the PAN of the assessee concerned. Thus, both the affiants agree that the DRP directions once uploaded on the ITBA portal are automatically visible to the FAO, if any assessment work item is pending related to a particular PAN. Admittedly assessment proceedings of Petitioner were pending. Thus, undoubtedly the DRP directions uploaded on the ITBA portal were readily and clearly visible and accessible to the FAO of assessee. 16.

Operative decision and relief

the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case so as to examine the failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give refund of tax paid by the Petitioner for the assesment year 2016-2017 which is in excess of legitimate tax due on the returned income of the Petitioner and directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith grant the refund for the assessment year 2016-2017 along with the applicable rate of interest.” 26.

be initiated on the failure on the part of the Faceless Assessing Officer concerned to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the lack of diligence on the part of officials concerned and the system itself insofar as it relates to the present assessment. Strict action should be taken against persons responsible for the laxity and lethargy displayed which has caused a huge loss to the exchequer and in turn to the citizens of this country.

circulated to the CBDT and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GOI. 27.

GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2023.11.08 15:04:00 +0545

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Center
• Ltd. v. Income-tax/
• Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Time limit after DRP directions and refund. The operative result is classified as Assessment held time-barred; refund with interest directed, with Revenue liberty for lawful reopening. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Time limit after DRP directions and refund. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance