HEARTWARES MEDICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not require notices for confirming sales to be issued with the knowledge of the assessee. The Court noted that while notices under Section 133(6) were sent to the hospitals, no response was received. Crucially, the petitioner did not file the sale confirmation letters before the assessing authority, and these documents were obtained only after the assessment order was issued. Therefore, the assessment order could not be faulted for not considering evidence collected by the assessee post-assessment. The Court found no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was put on notice and assessment proceedings were completed. The Court declined to examine the merits of the assessment order. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 246A of the Act before the appellate authority within fifteen days, with a direction for the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without regard to limitation. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner for fifteen days.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Heartwares Medicals India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 26, 2022, for assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that inquiries were conducted behind its back regarding sales to various hospitals, and the sale considerations were added as income without considering sales confirmation details. These confirmations were obtained after the assessment order was passed. The petitioner sought a remand to the assessing authority to reconsider the matter based on these post-assessment confirmations.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-consideration of sales confirmation details obtained after the assessment order was passed, and whether the assessment authority was obligated to issue notices with the assessee's knowledge under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that enquiries were held behind its back and that the assessment authority failed to consider sales confirmation details, which were subsequently obtained. The petitioner sought a remand to present these documents. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), argued that Section 133(6) does not mandate notices to be issued with the assessee's knowledge. It was also noted that the petitioner did not file the sale confirmation letters before the assessing authority, and the documents were obtained after the assessment order. The revenue implicitly supported the assessment order by highlighting the petitioner's recourse to appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the assessment order in Ext.P13 dated 26.12.2022 in respect of the assessment year 2021-22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiries were held behind the back of the petitioner- assessee in respect of certain sales effected to different hospitals and the assessing authority did not take into consideration the details of the confirmation of the sales made by the petitioner to different hospitals, and the amount of sale considerations had been added as income of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had obtained the details with regard to confirmation of the sales from the said hospitals after the assessment order. He, therefore, prays that the matter may be remanded back to the assessing authority with direction to re-consider
WP(C) NO. 2789 OF 2023 3 the same on the basis of the sales confirmation as per Ext.P14 series documents.
Under Section 133C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (“Act”, for short) there is no requirement that notices for confirming the sales etc. should be issued with the knowledge of the assessee. The assessment order would disclose that in respect of the alleged sales effected by the petitioner to different hospitals, notice under Section 133(6) was sent to each of the hospitals. However, no response was received from the said hospitals. During the assessment proceedings, the petitioner did not file sale confirmation letters, which have been obtained by him after the assessment order. Once the sales confirmation letters were not before the assessing authority, the assessment order cannot be faulted with for not considering the evidence, which were collected by the petitioner- assessee after the issuance of the assessment order. The petitioner has the remedy of appeal against the assessment order. Instead of filing
WP(C) NO. 2789 OF 2023 4 appeal against the assessment order, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.
In exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere with the proceedings only when the same has been issued without juri iction or there has been in infraction of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was put to notice and thereafter the assessment proceedings had been completed. Therefore, I do not find that the impugned assessment order is without juri iction or there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. This Court would not like to consider the merits of the assessment order. The petitioner was given notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 246A of the Act before the appellate authority against the impugned assessment order, within a period of WP(C) NO. 2789 OF 2023 5 fifteen (15) days from today. If such an appeal is filed before the appellate authority as above, the appellate authority should consider the same on merits, without going into the question of limitation. It is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of fifteen (15) days from today, for realisation of the tax determined vide the impugned assessment order. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE jg
WP(C) NO. 2789 OF 2023 6
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
