B K DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. KHEMCHAND UTTAMCHAND BHOJWANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8-1, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
WP/15216/2023HC BombayHCBM01036720202312 December 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that disposing of a matter on the first date of hearing does not inherently violate the principles of natural justice. Regarding the contention that the order was non-speaking, the Court found that paragraph 5 of the ITAT's order provided sufficient reasoning by referring to paragraph 10 of the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT stated that the appellant had not offered any explanation for cash deposits even before the CIT(A), and therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was considered reasoned and required no interference. The High Court found no reason to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being advised to pursue their alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, B. K. Developers, through its partner Mr. Khemchand Uttamchand Bhojwani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 27, 2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner contended that the ITAT's order was passed on the very first date of hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and that the order was non-speaking. The revenue was represented by the Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune, and others. The High Court was considering the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the ITAT on the first date of hearing violated the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the ITAT's order was a non-speaking order, failing to provide adequate reasons for dismissal, as contended by the petitioner. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 910-wp-15216-23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15216 OF 2023 B. K. Developers Through Its Partner Mr. Khemchand Uttamchand Bhojwani

….Petitioner V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune & Ors ....Respondents ---- Ms Vidhi Punmiya a/w Mr. Sanket Bora i/b SPCM Legal for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 12th DECEMBER 2023 P.C. : 1 Petitioner is impugning an order dated 27th March 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the ground that the impugned order was passed on very first date of hearing and hence in violation of principles of natural justice. We fail to understand how disposing the matter on the first date of hearing would amount to breaching the principles of natural justice. 2 The other ground raised is, it is a non speaking order. Counsel submitted that the findings does not give reasons why the appeal was dismissed. In our view, paragraph 5 of the impugned order gives the reason where it says “ I have carefully gone through the finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) vide para 10 of his order, on mere perusal of the said findings, it would be clear that the appellant had not offered any explanation in support of the cash deposits even during the course of proceedings before Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2023.12.13 16:26:29 +0530

2/2 910-wp-15216-23.doc the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is quite reasoned and requires no interference.” The ITAT need not have reproduced the entire paragraph 10 of the order of CIT(A). The specific reference to paragraph in the order of CIT(A) itself is a reason enough to let us know why the ITAT dismissed the appeal. 3 In the circumstances, we see no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition dismissed. 4 Of course, petitioner may exercise its alternate remedy by filing an appeal against the order of ITAT. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →