1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11585-2023 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Sr. No.218 BMW India Financial Services Private Limited …..Petitioner VERSUS Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Gurugram and Others ….Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate and Ms. Arunima Saraf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Advocate for the respondents. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Through this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.04.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and the notice dated 21.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, in respect of the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant record the following undisputed facts have emerged:- (i) On 30.04.2016, the petitioner had filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring therein income of Rs.92.74 crores which included net disallowance of Rs.18.97 crores towards doubtful debts; (ii) On 30.03.2018, the petitioner filed its revised return for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring therein the revised income of Rs.93.60 crores which included the aforesaid Rs.18.97 crores; PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.09 16.22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 (iii) On 30.03.2021, final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 was passed accepting the petitioner’s total income to be Rs.93.60 crores which included Rs.18.97 crores; (iv) On 10.03.2023, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was served upon the petitioner as to why for the assessment year 2016-17, Rs.18.97 crores be not added to the petitioner’s income; (v) On 16.03.2023, the petitioner clarified that Rs.18.97 crores have already been shown as part of its income which has also been accepted by the revenue authorities through the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 and that (vi) Accepting the afore stand taken by the petitioner, on 27.03.2023, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 263 of the Act were dropped. 3. 3. Inspite of the afore stated admitted facts, the impugned notice dated 21.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act again alleging therein wrongful deduction claimed by the petitioner of Rs.18.97 crores for the assessment year 2016-17 and the impugned order dated 21.04.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are not sustainable especially when an affidavit dated 16.12.2024 of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Gurugram has been filed before this Court to the effect that the petitioner has also paid income tax on the aforesaid amount of Rs.18,97,26,030/- PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.09 16.22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 4. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 21.04.2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice dated 21.04.2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed. 5. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE 06.07.2026 puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.09 16.22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment