M/S PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9316/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051933202522 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was liable to be set aside. The Court noted the admitted position that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing despite seeking one. In light of this admission and in terms of Section 274 of the Act, which mandates granting an opportunity of being heard, the Court set aside the order. The respondent-Income Tax Department was granted liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order, but only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law. The petition was allowed in the above terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the impugned penalty order was passed without granting them a personal hearing, despite such a hearing being sought. The respondent is the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the admission of the facts by the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner? The assessee argued that the penalty order was passed without granting a personal hearing, which is a violation of natural justice. The revenue admitted that the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing in spite of the fact that the same was sought. The revenue did not present any counter-arguments or rely on any specific authorities or precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN (Sr. No. 128)

M/s Perfe

Assessme

CORAM

Present :

DEEPAK (1) dated 20.0 the Act), t the same w (2)

274 of the revenue to hearing to (3)

22.09.202 sunil yadav

Wh N THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDI

etti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ent Unit, Income Tax Departmen M : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Anmol Anand, Advocate Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advoc Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior S the respondent(s)-Income Ta

* * * K SIBAL, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that before 03.2025 under Section 270A of th the petitioner was not granted per was sought. In the light of the above admi e Act, the impugned order is set a o pass a fresh reasoned order bu o the petitioner, in accordance with The present petition is allowed

( v

ether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No ether reportable : Yes / No PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH

CWP No.9316 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.09.2026 .....Petitio nt ` .....Respond E DEEPAK SIBAL E SUNISH BINDLISH e and cate for the petitioner. Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel ax Department. passing the impugned penalty or he Income-tax Act, 1961 (for sho rsonal hearing in spite of the fact t itted position and in terms of Sect aside with liberty to the responde ut only after granting opportunity h law. d in above terms. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE ( SUNISH BINDLISH ) JUDGE

6 oner dent rder rt – that tion ent- y of SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.24 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →