Calcutta High Court
Philips India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 August, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
OD - 19 & 20
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/80/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
VS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA AND ORS.
AND
APOT/81/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
VS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,
CIRCLE 11(1) , KOLKATA AND ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Date : 13th August, 2025
Appearance :
Mr. Parsee Padriwala, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Niraj Seth, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv.
Mr. B. Dey, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr.Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
..for the respondent.
The Court : These appeals filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by
the learned Single Bench in two writ petitions, namely, WPO/523/2023 and
WPO/499/2023. The assessee in both the appeals is the same company and the
2
challenge in WPO/499/2023 is to the legality and/or validity of an assessment order
dated 12.8.2022 passed by the first respondent under section 143(3) read with section
144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2018-19. In
WPO/523/2023 the challenge is to the legality and/or validity of the assessment order
dated 31.3.2022 passed by the first respondent under section 143(3) read with section
144B of the Act relating to the assessment year 2017-18. Both the writ petitions have
been dismissed by separate orders but the reasoning given by the learned Single Bench
is identical. As against the said orders, the present appeals have been filed. Broadly four
issues were raised which have been culled out by the learned Single Bench in the
following manner :
a) The Assessment Order dated 12th August, 2022, was passed manually without
mentioning the Document Identification Number (hereinafter referred to as
“DIN”) in its body and the same was passed in gross violation of the
departmental circular bearing no. 19/2019 dated August 14, 2019 (hereinafter
referred to as “the said circular”) and the said Assessment Order should be
treated as invalid and should be deemed to have never been issued as provided
in the paragraph 4 of the said circular.
b) The assessment order dated August 12, 2022, which has been challenged in the
present writ petition is barred by limitation, and therefore, respondent no. 1 has
no jurisdiction to pass the said order.
c) The time limit provided under the Act and as extended from time to time by
TOLA for passing the assessment order for AY 2018-19, the time expired on 30
September 2022. As the order was uploaded on the portal only on 23rd January
2023, the same is barred by limitation.
3
d) Whether the assessment orders impugned in the writ petition are invalid and
bad in law as it was passed without complying the mandatory procedure
provided under section 144C of the Act?
With regard to the issue (a), the question is whether non-mentioning of
Document Identification Number (DIN) will render the assessment order invalid. In
this regard, the appellant/writ petitioner placed reliance on the Circular issued by the
Department bearing no.19/2019 dated 14.8.2019. Several decisions of the other High
Courts were also relied upon including the decision of this Court in the case of Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Medical Centre Trust reported at [2023] 154
taxmann.com 600 (Cal.) In the said decision it was held that the DIN intimation letter
along with the manual order cannot satisfy exclusive requirement of incorporating DIN
mandated by CBDT Circular 19/2019 and, therefore, the order under section 263
manual (DIN) was invalid. As against such decision, the revenue carried the matter on
appeal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.37959/2024 [Commissioner of
Income Tax (Exemptions) Kolkata Vs. M/s. Tata Medical Centre Trust Kolkata] has
granted an order of interim stay. Therefore, the judicial discipline would warrant this
Court to avail the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on issue (a). The impact of the
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that may be passed in the pending appeal will, if
decided in favour of the assessee, render the entire assessment has to be declared as
invalid. If the decision is against the assessee then the Court may be required to
consider the other three issues regarding the validity of the assessment orders
impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Bench declined to entertain the writ
4
petition primarily on the ground that the question of limitation raised by the assessee is
a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner has to
avail the alternative remedy under the Act. In this regard, we take note of the various
decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, some of which have been referred to by the learned
Single Bench where the Hon’ble Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of the
alternative remedy that where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with
the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed or
when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice etc.
Therefore, there is no total bar for a constitutional court to exercise jurisdiction under
article 226 of the Constitution of India despite existence of an alternative remedy under
the relevant statute. That apart, we note that the writ petition was pending more than a
year and the affidavits were exchanged and at that juncture more than twelve hearings
have taken place and to throw out the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy
will be inequitable. This is a prima facie finding and will not affect the
respondent/revenue from canvassing all issues when appeal is heard.
In the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting stay of
the order passed by this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.
Tata Medical Centre Trust and also the judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi
in CIT Vs. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. reported at [2023] 149 taxmann.com 238
(Del.), we are of the view that the appeal should be entertained and kept pending and
await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, if the demand
5
issued against the appellant/writ petitioner is enforced then the appeal itself will
become infructuous.
For the above reasons, there will be an order of stay of the order passed by the
learned Single Bench as well as the assessment orders which were impugned in the writ
petition and the consequential demands that have been issued to the appellant/writ
petitioner. Let the appeals be listed in the Monthly list of November, 2025. Liberty is
granted to the learned Advocates on either side to mention in the event the Hon’ble
Supreme Court disposes of the appeal earlier.
Both the applications [GA/1/2025] stand closed.
(T.S SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
S.Das.
AR[CR]