SAMSON HEALTHCARE PVT LTD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 7 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)-11515/2023HC Delhi2023:DHC:650331 August 20233 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be set aside. The reasoning was that the objections/reply filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 were apparently not taken into account by the Assessing Officer while passing the order. The Court found that the best course of action was to quash the existing order and allow the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. Before passing the fresh order, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner and issue a notice indicating the date and time of the hearing. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Samson Healthcare Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 1) under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order transferred the petitioner's cases from Dy. CIT, Central Circle-22(2) (Respondent No. 2) to Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner had received a notice on 18.01.2023 regarding this proposed transfer and had filed its objections/reply on 23.01.2023. The petitioner contended that these objections were not considered while passing the impugned order. The revenue, represented by Mr. Puneet Rai, accepted notice and agreed to argue the matter based on the existing record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring the petitioner's cases, is valid, considering that the petitioner's objections filed on 23.01.2023 were allegedly not taken into account. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without considering their objections/reply filed in response to the notice issued under Section 127. This failure to consider the objections vitiated the order. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not file a counter-affidavit, indicating a willingness to proceed based on the available record. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C)No.11515/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decision delivered on: 31.08.2023 + W.P.(C) 11515/2023 & CM Nos.44815-16/2023

SAMSON HEALTHCARE PVT LTD ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Arta Trana Panda, Adv.

versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 7 & ORS.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar, Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.44816/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 11515/2023 & CM No.44815/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. Given the direction that we propose to issue, Mr Rai says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)No.11515/2023 Page 2 of 3

3.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself. 4. Via this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 5. Via the impugned order, the petitioner’s cases have been transferred from respondent no.2, i.e., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-22(2) to respondent no.4, i.e., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad. 6. The record shows that the petitioner was issued a notice before the impugned order had been passed. This notice was issued on 18.01.2023. 6.1 The record also shows that the petitioner has filed its objections/reply to the said notice on 23.01.2023. 7. It appears that while passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, the objections/reply filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 were not taken into account. 8. Therefore, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, with liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh order, albeit, as per law. 9. The AO, before passing a fresh order, will accord a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice indicating the date and time of the hearing to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C)No.11515/2023 Page 3 of 3

11.

The pending interlocutory application, i.e., CM No.44815/2023, is, accordingly closed. 12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

AUGUST 31, 2023

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:08.09.2023 21:15:50 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →