VAIDYANATHAN NATARAJN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/14117/2023HC BombayHCBM01044618202304 December 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31st March 2023. The delay in filing was condoned. The matter was remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent no.1) for de novo consideration on merits. The court directed that before passing any order, respondent no.1 shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, with at least 7 working days' advance notice. The order to be passed must be reasoned and deal with every submission made by the petitioner. Given the petitioner's age (over 81 years), the court directed that the application under Section 264 of the Act be disposed of on or before 31st January 2024. The court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vaidyanathan Natarajn, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 31st March 2023. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the impugned order and have the matter remanded for consideration on merits under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is stated to be over 81 years old. The High Court was hearing the petition when the proceedings took place.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31st March 2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, should be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, argued that Section 264 of the Income Tax Act confers wide jurisdiction on the Commissioner and is intended to provide relief to assessees who cannot approach appellate authorities or have no other remedy. It can cover situations where an error in the return is discovered later and raised in a Section 264 application. The assessee relied on the case of Smita Rohit Gupta V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors. The assessee sought for the impugned order to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded. Revenue's Contention: Ms. Kanani, representing the respondents, agreed with the court that Section 264 of the Act confers wide jurisdiction. She agreed that the impugned order should be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for consideration on the merits of the application under Section 264 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 405-wp-14117-23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14117 OF 2023 Vaidyanathan Natarajn ...Petitioner Versus Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 And Ors ...Respondents ---- Mr. Vasudev Ginde i/b Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Ms Samiksha Kanani i/b Mr. Ajeet Manwani for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2023 P.C. : 1 After the petition was heard for sometime, Ms Kanani, as an officer of this court, in fairness agreed with the court that Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) confers wide jurisdiction on the Commissioner. Proceedings under Section 264 of the Act are intended to meet the situation faced by an aggrieved assessee who is unable to approach the appellate authority for relief and has no other alternate remedy available under the Act. The Commissioner is bound to apply his mind to the question and it would even cover situations where the assessee because of an error has not put forth a legitimate claim at the time of filing the return and the error is subsequently discovered and is raised for the first time in an application under Section 264 of the Act (Smita Rohit Gupta V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.1). Ms Kanani states that the 1 2023 SCC Online Bom 1861 Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2023.12.05 16:50:39 +0530

2/2 405-wp-14117-23.doc impugned order dated 31st March 2023 be quashed and set aside and remand the matter for consideration on the merits of the application under Section 264 of the Act. 2 In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31st March 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. Delay is condoned. The matter is remanded to respondent no.1 for denovo consideration on merits. 3 Before passing any order, respondent no.1 shall give a personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 7 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with every submission of petitioner. Since, petitioner is over 81 years old, respondent no.1 is directed to dispose the application under Section 264 of the Act on or before 31st January 2024. 4 Petition disposed. 5 We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →