Quashed

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 (1) (2) Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2022WP/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an income tax assessment order passed without granting a personal hearing or sufficient time to respond. The court directed the Revenue to provide data, allow a reply, grant a personal hearing, and pass a revised assessment within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of assessment order; mandamus to quash assessment; direction to provide data, personal hearing, and revise assessment within 12 weeks.

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 (1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by MEERA 1 / 2 MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2022.01.19 11:33:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

919-wp-66-22.doc

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.66 OF 2022

¶4

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd.

¶5

….Petitioner

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Dr. Commissioner of Income
Tax 14(1)(2) Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents

¶8

----

¶9

Mr. P. S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal i/b Monika Dokhale
Walve for Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue

¶11

 ----
 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ
 DATED : 17th JANUARY 2022

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 We have heard counsel and also considered the petition.

¶14

2 The grievance of petitioner that the impugned order has been passed

¶15

without granting a personal hearing or considering the response filed by
petitioner to the draft assessment order dated 19th April 2021, is correct.
Even in this case, department has given less than 48 hours to respond to
petitioner. In the assessment order dated 21st April 2021 impugned in the
petition, respondents record that in the reply petitioner has alleged that the

¶16

import value of the purchases determined by the department was not
correct and it has sought data how department arrived at the figure alleged.
Respondent no.2 instead of providing data to petitioner has gone ahead and
passed the assessment order. This is totally against the principal of natural
justice and we would add smacks of high handed behaviour of respondent
no.2.

¶17

3 In the circumstances, assessment order dated 21^st April 2021 is

Meera Jadhav

919-wp-66-22.doc

2 / 2

quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2, shall within 2 weeks from today,
provide all the materials on which reliance has been placed while preparing
the draft assessment order and give atleast two weeks time to petitioner to
respond, in addition to the response dated 21st April 2021 filed by petitioner.
Thereafter, respondent no.2 shall give a personal hearing to petitioner and
intimate date and time of personal hearing at least 7 days in advance.
Subsequent thereto the assessment order as respondent no.2 may deem fit
can be passed but in that assessment order every point raised by petitioner
shall be dealt with in detail. If respondent no.2 wishes to rely on any
judgments or order passed by any Court or Tribunal, he shall provide a copy
thereof to petitioner and give them an opportunity to deal with those
judgments or distinguish those judgments and those submissions of
petitioner shall also be dealt with in the assessment order.

¶22

4After completing the above proceedings, the final assessment order
shall be passed within 12 weeks from the date of this order being uploaded.
The assessment order impugned does not indicate the name of the officer
who has passed the order. Respondents shall ensure that this matter is
assigned to some other officer, who was not the Assessing Officer who
passed the impugned assessment order.

¶23

5 Petition disposed with no order as to costs.

¶24

(R. N. LADDHA, J.)

¶25

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶26

Meera Jadhav

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 (1) (2) Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 (1) (2) Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.H.Kelkar and Company Ltd. Vs Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner and 3 Ors.

The Commissionr of Central Excise and Customs Raigad Commissinerate Vs M/S Reliance Industries Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Incoem TAX-4 Vs Kruti Lalitkumar Jain

Macrotech Developoers Limited.(Successor to Palava Dwellers Pvt.Ltd) Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3),MUMBIA and 2 Ors.

Girraj Kishor Agrawal Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 8(3) and 2 Ors.

Kamlesh Rajnikant Shah Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX(CENTRAL)-4, Mumbai and 4 Ors.