High Court sets aside revisionary order purportedly passed earlier but dispatched after written Submissions were filed
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court has set aside the revisionary order u/s 264 which purported passed earlier but dispatched only after the written submissions were filed by the assessee.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3977 (2024) (04) HC
In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition praying quashing of order passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was partly rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).
The assessee contended that though impugned order purported to have been dated earlier but the same had not left the control and custody of the PCIT up the date which was after the written submissions had been filed by the petitioner.
The Petitioner urged that on this ground alone, the impugned order deserved to be set-aside and the matter to be remitted back to the PCIT for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
The assessee submitted that he had filed additional written submissions which had also not been considered fully and in the proper perspective, which would vitiate the impugned order. Secondly, it was pointed out that in the impugned order, PCIT referred to certain information said to have been procured from Banks etc. in relation to the petitioner, which had not been furnished to the petitioner for his explanation thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner had declared certain income under Income Declaration Scheme which would have a bearing on the claim of the petitioner and non-consideration of the same would also require the impugned order to be set aside and remitted back to PCIT.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that a perusal of the postal cover indicated that though the impugned order was purported to have been passed before, but the impugned order was dispatched only subsequent to the written submissions filed by the petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that in view of this ambiguity and discrepancy that is apparent on the face of the record, as regards the purported date of the impugned order and date of dispatch by the PCIT, the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by considering written submissions filed by the Petitioner.
On this point, the Hon’ble High Court further observed that in any event, a perusal of the written submissions filed by the petitioner also indicated that the same were relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved in the petition and since the
same would have bearing/impact on the claim of the petitioner, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
The Hon’ble High Court further opined that as contended by the Petitioner there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice in not providing the information relied upon by the PCIT and as such impugned order was violative the principles of natural justice and the same deserved to be set-aside.
The Hon’ble High Court also opined that non consideration of the income under declaration scheme was yet another circumstance that vitiated the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to PCIT for reconsideration afresh only to the limited extent of rejection of the claim of the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default
- Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact
- SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of Chartered Accountant Firms 2024-25. Last date 18.05.2024
- Change in the constitution of Appellate Authority for CAs CSs and Cost Accountants
- Trade Tax refund withheld beyond stipulated period & adjusted from demand unjustified – SC
