Special Blasts Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax

¶1

1

CGHC010338142026

2026:CGHC:40969

NAFR

Digitally signed by ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.09.22 14:51:09 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPT No. 162 of 2026

¶8

1 - Sbl Energy Limited Through Its Director Alok Choudhari, S/o Late S.S. Choudhari Aged About 55 Years R/o C-86/87, Sector- 1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001

¶9

--- Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle- 2, Room No. 819, 8th Floor, C-03 Block, C.B.D Complex, Tower-A, Sector- 21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492018.

¶12

2 - Additional/ Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range Central 8th Floor, C-03 Block, C.B.D Complex, Tower- A, Sector-21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492018.

¶13

3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462011.

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WPT No. 165 of 2026

¶16

1 - Special Blasts Limited, Through Its Director Ajay Choudhari, S/o ate S.S. Choudhari, Aged About 60 Years, R/o C-86/87, Sector-1,Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001.

¶17

--- Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

1 - Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Room No. 819, 8th Floor, C-03 Block, Cbd Complex, Tower-A, Sector-21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492018.

¶20

2

¶21

2 - Additional/ Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range Central 8th Floor, C-03 Block, Cbd Complex, Tower-A, Sector-21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492018.

¶22

3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, 462011.

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

WPT No. 164 of 2026

¶25

1 - Sbl Energy Limited Through Its Director Alok Choudhari, S/o Late S.S. Choudhari Aged About 55 Years R/o C-86/87, Sector- 1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001

¶26

--- Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

1 - Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle- 2, Room No. 819, 8th Floor, C-03 Block, C.B.D Complex, Tower-A, Sector- 21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492018. 2 - Additional/ Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range Central 8th Floor, C-03 Block, C.B.D Complex, Tower- A, Sector-21, Tuta, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492018.

¶29

3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462011

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate.

¶32

For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate.

¶33

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶34

Order On Board

¶35

21.09.2026

¶36

Since all the writ petitions, i.e. WPT No. 162/2026, WPT No. 164/2026 and WPT No. 165/2026 involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The details of cases are given in tabulation form as under:-

¶37

3

¶38

Sl.	WPT No.	Order under Section	Assessment Year
No.		270AA- Date of order
1.	162/2026	30.07.2026	2024-2025
2.	164/2026	30.07.2026	2021-2022
3.	165/2026	30.07.2026	2024-2025

¶39

WPT No.162/2026 is taken as lead case and the facts of this case have been taken into consideration for deciding the issue raised in the writ petition.

¶40

The assessee has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure P/6), passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur, under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the petitioner's application seeking immunity from imposition of penalty was rejected.

¶41

The brief facts reflected from the record are that assessment order along with notice dated 28.03.2026 Annexure- P/1 was issued to the petitioner for the financial year 2024-2025, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax of Central Circle (2) Raipur. Assessing Officer has assessed addition of income under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessed as total income of Rs.36,99,03,871/- accordingly, it has issued demand of Rs.22,22,860/- against the petitioner.

¶42

Thereafter, department had issued notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Income Tax Act on 28.03.2026, directing the petitioner to appear before it at 2:54 pm on 15.04.2024 and show cause as to why and order imposing a penalty upon the petitioner should not be made under Section 270A of the 1961.

¶43

4

¶44

The notice further provides that if the petitioner intent to take benefit of Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, he has opportunity to make application on or before the said date. The petitioner submitted application on 23.04.2026 along with Form No.68 for immunity from levy of penalty and, thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice on 28.07.2026 under Section 270AA of the Act, why the immunity claimed by the petitioner may not be rejected.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the newly inserted Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act deals with immunity from imposition of penalty. The petitioner after complying with the condition has submitted the application for granting immunity from penality vide which has been rejected without giving him proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was served with notice and was directed to before the Income Tax Department on 15.04.2026. The Assessing Authority kept pending the matter and without giving proper opportunity has rejected the same. Which is nothing but it is violation of principle of natural justice and fair play and would pray for granting and opportunity to appear before the authority and defend the case properly.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, under the amended provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officers have the discretion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, either to waive the penalty or to impose the same. Before imposing the penalty, the Assessing Officers are required to consider any application made by the assessees seeking immunity from the imposition of penalty, in accordance with law and the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, notice was issued on 28th July, 2026, requiring the petitioner to submit its replies by 29^th July, 2026, no reasonable or sufficient time was granted to the petitioners to submit its replies. He would submit that the after

¶47

5

¶48

submission of the application by the petitioner it was kept pending for such a long period and all of us sudden on 30.07.2026, thereafter, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the order without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department would submit that the proceedings were conducted within the time prescribed as per the statutory provisions. He further submits that the imposition of penalty is within the discretion of the Assessing Authorities, which is required to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Since the Assessing Authorities, upon consideration of the matters, found that the petitioners were not entitled to waiver of the penalty, the applications seeking immunity from imposition of penalty were rightly rejected. It has also been contended that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners submitted reply on 29.03.2026 and thereafter it was kept for three months is misconceived as per the Section 270AA of the Act. The authority has to examine and verify whether Additional Income Tax amounting to 100%, which has been assessed as per Section 143 or reassessment under Section 147 has been paid within the period specified in the notice and were penalty has been levied the same has been paid within the period specified in the notice of demand and no appeal has been filed against the order referred in Clause A and B, therefore, the matter was kept by the authority and only after the period expired they have decided the case and would pray for dismissal of the present petition.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶51

6

¶52

From the submissions made by the parties the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the impugned order rejecting the immunity from imposition from penality AnnexureP/6 is in-conformity with fair play and principles of natural justice or not.

¶53

To appreciate the point of determination this court has to extract the provision of Section 277A as amended by the Finance Act 2026 which read as under:

¶54

Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc.

¶55

“270AA.⁷ [ (1) An assessee may make an application to the Assessing Officer to grant immunity from imposition or, as the case may be, waiver of penalty under section 270A and immunity from initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely: —

¶56

(a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or reassessment under section 147 has been paid within the period specified in the notice of demand;

¶57

(b) where penalty has been levied or, as the case may be, leviable under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of section 270A, additional income-tax amounting to one hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on underreported income has been paid within the period specified in the notice of demand, in lieu of such penalty; and

¶58

(c) no appeal has been filed against the order referred to in clauses (a) and (b).

¶59

(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month in which the order referred to in clause (a) and clause (b) of the said sub-section has been received by the assessee, in such form and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed.

¶60

(3) The Assessing Officer shall, on fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (1) and after the expiry of the period of filing the appeal as specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition or, as the case may be, waiver of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC.

¶61

(3A) No immunity or, as the case may be, waiver under subsection (3) shall be granted where any proceedings has been initiated under Chapter XXII. ]

¶62

(4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of⁸ [three months] from the end of the month in which the application under sub-section (1) is received, pass an order accepting or rejecting such application:

¶63

7

¶64

Provided that no order rejecting the application shall be passed unless the assessee has been given an opportunity of being heard.

¶65

(5) The order made under sub-section (4) shall be final.

¶66

(6) No appeal under section 246 or section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.

¶67

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the provisions of Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that an application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the order referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) has been made, by the assessees in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed. Thereafter, upon fulfilment of the conditions specified in subsection (1) and after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal as specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 249, the Assessing Authorities shall grant immunity from imposition of penalty under Section 270A and from initiation of proceedings under Section 276C or Section 277, as the case may be.

¶68

From a perusal of aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Authorities to wait until the expiry of the prescribed appellate period. Therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assessing Authorities waited until the last date of period provided under the statute cannot be accepted. As the act provides that unless and until the said period of filing the appeal expire, the Assessing Authorities cannot decide the issue relating to immunity from penalty. To that extent, the action of the Assessing Authority cannot be found faulty.

¶69

8

¶70

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the cases and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that on 28th July, 2026, notices were issued to the petitioners directing them to appear on 29th July, 2026, and thereafter, the impugned orders was passed on 30^th July, 2026, which This prima facie reflects that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners to put forth their respective cases and substantiate their claims for immunity from imposition of penalty. Therefore, considering the inadequate time granted by the Assessing Authority, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was deprived with sufficient opportunity to put forword the case before the authority, therefore, the impugned order AnnexureP/6 deserves to be set aside and, accordingly it is set aside.

¶71

It is also relevant to note that the period prescribed under the Act is stated to expire on 30^th September, 2026. The petitioner shall, therefore, appear before the Assessing Authorities on 25th September, 2026, along with all relevant records and documents. On the said date, the petitioners shall submit their contentions which they intend to take before the assessing authority. Thereafter, the Assessing Authorities shall consider the matters and will pass the order taking into consideration the submissions made and the material placed on record before it in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

¶72

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ bunch of petitions are disposed of. Sd/-

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶75

Arpan

Special Blasts Limited, v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Blasts Limited, v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2

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