DIVYANG MAHENDRAKUMAR YAGNIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C/SCA/5964/2012 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5964 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ DIVYANG MAHENDRAKUMAR YAGNIK....Petitioner(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL Page 1 of 4

C/SCA/5964/2012 JUDGMENT KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

Date : 07/05/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The   petitioner   has   challenged   an   order   dated April   16,   2012   at   Annexure­A   to   the   petition passed by the respondent­Commissioner of Income­ tax. By such order, the Commissioner was pleased to   dismiss   the   petitioner's   revision   petition under   section   264   of   the   Income­tax   Act,   1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. For the assessment year 2008­09, the petitioner had filed a return declaring gross total income of Rs.9,50,726/­. After claiming deduction under Chapter VI­A of Rs.1,12,984/­, the petitioner had indicated his total income at Rs.8,37,742/­. The case of the petitioner, however, is that this was due   to   an   arithmetical   error.   The   Chartered Accountant, who filled in the prescribed form of the return, had added a sum of Rs.5,82,883/­ to Page 2 of 4

C/SCA/5964/2012 JUDGMENT the   gross   income   of   the   assessee   of Rs.3,67,843/­, which sum was separately treated. This sum of Rs.5,82,883/­ comprised of dividend, interest of PPF, etc. These were either exempt from   tax   or   were   separately   already   accounted for. It was on account of this error that the return containing the figures of gross and net incomes   of   the   assessee   in   excess   by Rs.5,82,883/­. 3. The   return   of   the   assessee   was   accepted   under section   143(1)   of   the   Act.   Later   on   the petitioner   applied   for   rectification.   The Assessing   Officer,   however,   rejected   the application,   upon   which   the   petitioner   filed   a revision   petition   before   the   Commissioner.   The Commissioner   dismissed   the   petition   without granting hearing to the petitioner. 4. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that   the   entire   issue   is   required   to   be considered by the Commissioner after hearing the petitioner. It is an undisputed position that no Page 3 of 4

C/SCA/5964/2012 JUDGMENT personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated April 16, 2012 is quashed. The proceedings are placed   back   before   the   Commissioner.   The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner on June 02, 2014. No separate notice of the first hearing would be necessary. We clarify that we have fixed this date only to eliminate the stage of issuance of notice to the petitioner. If it is not convenient to the Commissioner to conduct the hearing on such date, it would be open for him to reschedule the hearing. The petition is disposed of   in   above   terms.   Rule   is   made   absolute accordingly. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 4 of 4