RBL BANK LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12588/2022HC BombayHCBM01042802202208 August 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner was justified in raising the grievance that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order dated 24th September 2022 was passed. The Court noted the respondents' admission and the affidavit confirming that the petitioner's requests for e-hearing were not complied with by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Consequently, the impugned Assessment Order dated 24th September 2022, along with the consequential notice of demand under Section 156 and the notice of penalty under Section 274 r/w. Section 270A, were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for de-novo hearing to the Faceless Assessing Officer, who was directed to pass a reasoned order after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, with at least seven working days' notice. The Assessment Order was to be passed within twelve weeks from the date the order was uploaded. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, RBL Bank Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an assessment order dated 24th September 2022. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed. The respondents, represented by Mr. Suresh Kumar, an Officer of the Court, conceded that the petitioner was justified in raising this grievance. An affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Vaibhav Dhere stated that requests for e-hearing through Video Conferencing made by the petitioner on 4th January 2022 and 14th September 2022 were not complied with by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The assessment year is not explicitly stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 24th September 2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning the right to a hearing). Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): Argued that no personal hearing was granted, which is a violation of due process. Relied on the fact that requests for e-hearing were not complied with. Revenue (Respondents): Conceded that the petitioner was justified in raising the grievance regarding the lack of personal hearing. Relied on paragraph 4.2 of the affidavit-in-reply confirming non-compliance with e-hearing requests.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

910-wp-12588-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12588 OF 2022 RBL Bank Ltd., .. Petitioner. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kolhapur & Others .. Respondents. Mr. S. Sriram i/b. Sriram Sridharan, for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,JJ. DATED : 8th AUGUST 2023. P.C:- Mr. Suresh Kumar, as an Officer of the Court, in fairness, states that Petitioner is justified in raising grievance that no personal hearing was granted before the impugned order dated 24th September 2022 came to be passed. Mr. Suresh Kumar also relies on paragraph 4.2 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr. Vaibhav Dhere affirmed on 13th December 2022 where it is stated that order-sheet details and case-history noting of the assessment proceedings in ITBA in this case that the requests for e-hearing through Video Conferencing made by Petitioner on 4th January 2022 and 14th September 2022 were not complied with by National Faceless Assessment Centre. S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Digitally signed by SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date: 2023.08.17 10:32:59 +0530

910-wp-12588-2022.doc 2 In the circumstances, impugned Assessment Order dated 24th September 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded for de-novo hearing to the Faceless Assessing Officer. 3 Consequently, the notice of demand dated 24th September 2022 issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) and notice of penalty issued under Section 274 r/w. Section 270A of the Act also dated 24th September 2022 are quashed and set aside. 4 Faceless Assessing Officer shall pass a reasoned order after granting a personal hearing to Petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast seven working days in advance. The Assessment Order to be passed within twelve weeks from the date this order is uploaded. 5 Petition disposed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the Petition. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM,J.) S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →