Allowed

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Transaction) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2015WP/3124/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged penalty orders for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court set aside the orders as they were passed without a personal hearing and restored the matter for fresh disposal invoking principles of natural justice. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the limitation period issue.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were allowed. The impugned penalty orders dated 30.09.2015 for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 were set aside and the issues restored for fresh disposal with hearing. The Court excluded t

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria Vs the Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

2974-15-wp-l=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2974 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2975 OF 2015

¶4

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel a/w Madhur Agarwal, Atul Jasani for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal for the respondents

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 10^th DECEMBER, 2015.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

At the request of the Counsel, both the Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶15

Each of these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the two independent orders dated 30^th September, 2015 one for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

2974-15-wp-l=.doc

other for Assessment Year 2007-08. Both the impugned order impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the two concerned years.

¶20

It is an undisputed position that both the impugned orders for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 have been passed without granting any personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶21

It is also contended by the Petitioner that it seems that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to pass the impugned orders on the basis that the period of limitation to pass orders under Section 275 of the Act expires on 30^th September, 2015 as evident from letter dated 29^th September, 2015. This according to the Petitioner is not the correct interpretation of Section 275 of the Act.

¶22

In the above view, we are setting aside the impugned orders dated 30^th September, 2015 and restoring the issue for fresh disposal to the Assessing Officer after following the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer would also hear the petitioner's submissions with regard to the proper interpretation of

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

2974-15-wp-l=.doc

Section 275 of the Act while passing a fresh order.

¶27

Needless to state that all contentions of the parties are left open excepting that the Petitioners will not contend that the time to pass orders on penalty expired on 30^th September, 2015. Further, the period spent from 30^th September, 2015 to a period of two weeks from the date of this order shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation in passing orders in respect of penalty.

¶28

Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Uday S. Jagtap

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Transaction) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Transaction) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Pune Vs Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune Vs Sunil R. Agarwal, C/O.Khandelwal Jain Associates

Director of Income Tax ( International Taxation) - II Vs M/S. Lioyds Register

Bharti Jaiprakash Gajaria Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International TRANSACTION)-2(3)(1) and 2 Ors.

Commissioner of Income TAX-21 Vs M/S Sai Shiv Developers

Commissioner of Income TAX-21 Vs M/S Sai Shiv Developers