Allowed

Radan Multimedia Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-2 and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2021WP/3151/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside an order dated 10 December 2018 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to procedural irregularity regarding service of notice and non-consideration of ITAT orders. The Court directed the Respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the Petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10 December 2018 is set aside. Respondents shall pass a fresh order on or before 31 March 2022 after personal hearing.

Radan Multimedia Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-2… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

905-WP-3151-2019.doc

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

Digitally signed by PURTI PURTI PRASAD PRASAD PARAB PARAB Date: 2021.12.17 11:34:19 +0530

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3151 OF 2019

¶6

Radan Multimedia Ltd.

¶7

….Petitioner

¶8

 V/s.

¶9

Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax-2 and Ors.

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

----

¶12

Mr. Mehul A. Rathod for Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.

¶13

 ----

¶14

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

¶15

AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
 DATED : 15th DECEMBER 2021

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

1.Heard the counsel and in our view petitioner is justified in
raising grievance that in the impugned order dated 10th December, 2018
respondent was not correct in not considering the order passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 13th January, 2017 in
Miscellaneous Application. Moreover, the impugned order starts with the
words "In this case assessment order under Section 143(3) read with
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was passed on 13th
December, 2017 whereas no order under Section 143(3) of the Act has been
passed." The order was passed under Section 144 of the Act and that also,
having considered the petition, without issuing notice to petitioner at the
address of petitioner.

¶18

Purti Parab

¶19

905-WP-3151-2019.doc

¶20

2 / 2

¶21

2.We have to note that strangely the orders have been served to
the right address but notice is served in the old address though before
issuance of notice respondents were informed by petitioner about change of
address. In any event, petitioner being a company, respondents could have
found out the registered office address from the record of the Registrar of
Companies, Mumbai.

¶22

3.In the circumstances, the order dated 10th December, 2018 is set
aside. Respondents may pass fresh order after considering the submissions/
reply to be filed by petitioner to the notices referred to in the order dated
13th December, 2017 which according to respondent was returned unserved,
considering the order of ITAT dated 6th January, 2016 read with order dated
13th January, 2017 and after giving personal hearing to petitioner.
Respondent shall pass the order on or before 31st March, 2022. We clarify
that we have not made any observations on the merits of the case.

¶23

4. Petition disposed.

¶24

(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶25

Purti Parab

Radan Multimedia Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-2 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radan Multimedia Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-2 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

Milestone Brandcom Private Limited. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre and Anr.

Shevantibhai C Mehta Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward Pune and Ors.

Sujauddin Kasimsab Sayyed Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal through the Registrar and Ors.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-27 Vs Uday Namdeo Salunkhe

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-27 Vs Shri Uday Namdeo Salunkhe

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-27 Vs Uday Namdeo Salunkhe