PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NAVRATNA ORGANIZERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1193/2018HC GujaratGJHC24056907201801 October 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the Revenue's grievance that the ITAT should have imposed some conditions or costs on the assessee when remanding the proceedings to ensure seriousness. The Court was of the prima facie view that imposing a fair amount of cost could have been considered to instill a required level of seriousness. However, the Court stated that solely for this reason, they were not inclined to entertain the appeal, as they did not find any other substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Court expressed hope that the Tribunal would bear these observations in mind in future proceedings. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the operative direction being the disposal of the tax appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated March 28, 2018. The ITAT had remanded the proceedings back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the appeal order before the ITAT was passed ex-parte. The Revenue contended that the ITAT, while remanding the matter, should have imposed some conditions or restrictions on the assessee to ensure seriousness in the proceedings. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the ITAT's ex-parte order and the subsequent remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in remanding the proceedings to the CIT(Appeals) without imposing any conditions or costs on the assessee, thereby failing to ensure seriousness in the assessment proceedings? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the powers of the Tribunal). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order remanding the proceedings was flawed because it did not impose any check or restriction on the assessee. They contended that at least a fair amount of cost should have been imposed to bring about a sense of seriousness in the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings. The Revenue's grievance was that the Tribunal did not put any 'check or restriction' on the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1193/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1193 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S NAVRATNA ORGANIZERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 01/10/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.3.2018. Tribunal remanded the proceedings for consideration of CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the appeal order was exparte. Learned counsel for the appellant is justified in making a grievance that the Tribunal did not put some check or restriction on the assessee so that sense of seriousness is brought about in the proceedings. In our prima facie view, even if the Tribunal was inclined to grant opportunity

participate

the proceedings, at least imposition of fair Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/1193/2018 ORDER amount of cost could have been considered. This would bring in a level of seriousness required on the part of the assessee while facing assessment proceedings. However, only for such purpose, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, since otherwise we do not find any question of law arising. In future assure the Tribunal would bear in mind these observations.

Tax appeal is disposed of accordingly. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →