BRIJESH OMKARNATH GOVIL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7210 OF 2022 Brijesh Omkarnath Govil .. Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dharan Gandhi a/w Darshan Gajra, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, Advocate for the Revenue/Respondent.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2026 P. C.

amount represented the amount received by the Petitioner from the Milk Collection Centre. Further, the bank account in which such cash was deposited was in the name of the proprietary concern of the Petitioner, namely, D Dacor. c. An online notice was received calling upon the Petitioner to explain the cash deposited by him in the bank account. The same was duly replied to on 2nd March 2017 in the form “Cash Transactions 2016”. In the said reply, the Petitioner submitted that the deposit of Rs.62,92,500/- was in relation to cash sales of raw chilled milk, which was thereafter deposited in the bank account maintained with Vijaya Bank. d. The Petitioner filed his Return of Income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 12th September 2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,47,690/-. According to the Petitioner, this amount represented commission earned from supply of raw chilled milk. e. The case of the Petitioner was selected for scrutiny by issuance of Notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act. Several notices thereafter were issued to the Petitioner under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. It is the case of the Petitioner that all the notices and other documents received were forwarded by him to his 30.wp.7210.2022.doc

Chartered Accountant. However, since his Chartered Accountant was due to get married, he did not respond to the notices issued. To this effect, an affidavit was filed by the Chartered Accountant before Respondent No.1 in the revision proceedings under Section 264 of the IT Act, which is found at page 131 of the Petition. Since, no reply was filed in the course of the assessment proceedings, a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the IT Act was passed on 19th December 2019 against the Petitioner, wherein the entire amount of Rs.62,92,500/- was added under Section 69A of the IT Act. Simultaneously, a demand of Rs.65,73,345/- was raised on the same day on the Petitioner in the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the IT Act. Further, penalty Show Cause Notices were also issued to the Petitioner. f. Sometime in February 2020, the Assessing Officer proceeded to attach the bank account of the Petitioner. g. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 264 of the IT Act on 20th May 2022 before Respondent No.1 to challenge the Assessment Order dated 19th December 2019. h. Just two months before the time-barring date, i.e. on 4th February 2022, Respondent No.1 issued a notice of hearing. A 30.wp.7210.2022.doc

detailed reply was filed on 7th February 2022 along with a paper-book. In the said paper-book, the Petitioner filed various evidences including the appointment letter of the Petitioner dated 1st October 2016 issued by Navnath Milk Traders. Further, the Petitioner also annexed various delivery challans in respect of raw chilled milk delivered by the Petitioner. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the Petitioner submitted that it was the money collected from the Milk Collection Centre, which was required to be paid to the farmers, that had remained in his hands on 8th November 2016 and which was thereafter deposited in the bank account. It was submitted that the farmers had refused to accept currency in denominations of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-. The Petitioner was left with no choice but to deposit the same in the bank account and thereafter make payments to the farmers. The Petitioner requested Respondent No.1 to admit the additional evidence. The Petitioner also requested Respondent No.1 to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Petitioner also sought an opportunity to represent his case through a personal hearing. 30.wp.7210.2022.doc

i. Respondent No.1 issued another notice on 14th February 2022, wherein the Petitioner was required to justify as to how the conditions of sub Sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 264 had been complied with. In response thereto, the Petitioner filed a reply on 16th February 2022 explaining how the conditions of sub Sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 264 had been duly complied with. j. Respondent No.1 issued another notice on 11th March 2022. In the said notice, the Petitioner was asked to provide proof of payment of the requisite fees under sub Section (5) of Section 264 and an affidavit affirming that no appeal had been filed against the order under Section 144 of IT Act. In response thereto, the Petitioner filed a reply on 14th March 2022 providing the affidavit and the challan. Another reply was also filed on 14th March 2022 wherein the Petitioner stated that he was required to personally appear on 15th March 2022 and that it was not possible for him to appear on that day; therefore, he requested one month’s time to appear personally and file all documents. k. It is the case of the Petitioner that without granting any further opportunity of hearing, on 21st March 2022, the impugned 30.wp.7210.2022.doc

order was passed by Respondent No.1 whereby he rejected the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner.

to appear on some other day before 31st March 2022. However, this was not done. Be that as it may, he submits that before the Principal Commissioner, the Petitioner filed additional evidence as the Assessment Order was an ex parte order. Moreover, the Petitioner had categorically made a request before the Principal Commissioner, i.e. Respondent No.1, that since the additional evidence had been filed and the Assessment Order was an ex parte order, the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration. He makes the same submission before us, namely, that both the lower authorities have not considered the evidence filed, and in any event, since the evidence was filed for the first time before Respondent No.1, he will have to obtain a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In that case, it would be proper and justified to remand the matter back for a de novo consideration to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

He submitted that the Principal Commissioner has found the evidence to be unreliable and, therefore, rejected the same. He, therefore, submitted that the Petition may be dismissed.

is not a whisper about the aforesaid evidences in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. Respondent No.1 has merely made a cursory statement that there was no reliable evidence filed in the Petition under Section 264. Though it is true that no evidence was filed along with the Revision Petition under Section 264, the same was duly filed in the response submitted by the Petitioner on 7th February 2022. Further, apart from stating that no reliable evidence was filed, no adverse comments have been made against the aforesaid evidences filed by the Petitioner. This, in our view, supports the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 has failed to consider the evidences so filed.

(F) Upon communication of this order, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall initiate the assessment proceedings by sending an intimation to the Petitioner who shall then proceed to make his submissions. This order shall be communicated to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by the learned advocate for the Revenue within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court Website.