Partly allowed

Pinkrose Realty Pvt.Ltd. v. the Assessment Unit and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2021WP/2289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an income tax assessment order for not addressing submissions in the petitioner's reply to a draft assessment order. The bench set aside the order, directing the respondent to consider the reply before passing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order dated 27th April, 2021 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the reply dated 24th April, 2021 and pass a fresh assessment order.

Pinkrose Realty Pvt.Ltd. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

925 WP 2289-2021.doc

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY signed by PURTI PURTIPRASAD CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PRASAD PARAB PARAB Date: 2021.09.22 10:53:49+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 2289 OF 2021

¶4

Pinkrose Realty Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

 V/s.
The Assessment Unit/Additional/
Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
and Ors.….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr. Rohan Deshpande i/b Farzeen Khambatta
for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents.

¶9

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
 DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER 2021

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1.Petitioner is impugning the assessment order dated 27th April,
2021 but digitally signed on 28th April, 2021 on the grounds that the order
has been passed without considering or dealing with the submissions made
by petitioner in its reply dated 24th April, 2021.

¶12

2.Petitioner had received various notices under Section 142 (1) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2018-19. Petitioner replied to
all these notices. Thereafter, petitioner received notice dated 20th April,
2021 calling upon to show cause as to why the assessment should not be
completed as per draft assessment order. Petitioner was granted time upto
23.59 hours of 24th April, 2021. This show cause notice has been digitally
signed at 19.40 hours on 20th April, 2021. So effectively petitioner had four

¶13

Purti Parab

¶14

925 WP 2289-2021.doc

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

days to respond. Notwithstanding the short period granted to respond,
petitioner submitted its reply dated 24th April, 2021 to the draft assessment
order. In the order impugned in the petition, respondent has referred to this
reply dated 24th April, 2021 but has not dealt with any of the submissions
made in the said reply. In the petition, there is specific averment as under :

¶17

“Moreover, apart from recording that petitioner filed a reply on April
24, 2021 in response to the draft order, none of the specific detailed
averments and documentary references advanced in the reply have
been adverted to, or dealt with in the impugned order”.

¶18

3.In the additional affidavit in reply filed by one Reena Jha
Tripathi affirmed on 2nd August, 2021, respondent states as under :

¶19

“……..In response to the statutory notices on the above issues and a
Show Cause Notice containing Draft Assessment order (DAO) dated
20.04.2021; the assessee furnished its replies on 12.09.2020,
21.12.2020, 12.02.2021 and 24.04.2021. The reply, documents and
objections to the DAO furnished by the assessee were examined and had
been discussed in the following paragraph nos. 6-33 of the assessment
order……..”

¶20

4.We have perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for
petitioner and respondent paragraph no. 6 to 33 of the assessment order
and we find that it is repetition of paragraph no. 6 to 33 of the draft
assessment order dated 20th April, 2021.

¶21

Purti Parab

¶22

925 WP 2289-2021.doc

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

5.Mr. Walve in fairness states that there is no specific denial in the
affidavit in reply to the allegations made by petitioner. He states that
respondent has referred to the reply dated 24th April, 2021 but the same has
not been dealt with in the assessment order.

¶25

6.In the circumstances, we are inclined to and hereby interfere
with the impugned assessment order. The assessment order dated 27th
April, 2021 is set aside. Respondent may consider the reply dated 24th April,
2021 and pass such order as deemed fit in the fresh assessment order to be
issued. As petitioner has not sought for personal hearing, no personal
hearing is required to be granted. We have not made any observations on
the merits of the case.

¶26

7. Petition accordingly stands disposed.

¶27

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶28

Purti Parab

Pinkrose Realty Pvt.Ltd. v. the Assessment Unit and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinkrose Realty Pvt.Ltd. v. the Assessment Unit and 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

Sevval Padmanabhan Vasudevan Vs Income Tax Officer WARD-23(3)(3) and 2 Ors.

commissisoner of centrl excise Vs usha fashions Pvt. Ltd.

Mateen Pyarali Dholakia Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajendra Rasiklal Shah Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-2, Nashik and Anr.

Anil Kumar R. Bansal Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income TAX-13(3)

Anilkumar R. Bansal Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income TAX-13(3)