DINESH LAXMAN PATIL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/14924/2023HC BombayHCBM01054753202320 February 2024Bench: 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 found that the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the assessee had not filed any objections to the proposed additions was factually incorrect. The court noted that the assessee had filed objections on 27th September 2023, supported by an acknowledgment. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated 23rd October 2023 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration, with a direction for a personal hearing to be provided to the petitioner at least five working days after notice. The assessment order to be passed must be a reasoned order addressing all submissions. The penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271 and the demand notice issued under Section 156 were also quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that no observations on the merits of the matter were made. The assessment proceedings were to be concluded by 31st May 2024.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Laxman Patil, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 23rd October 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad. The revenue was represented by Mr. Suresh Kumar. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the assessee had not filed objections to the proposed additions was incorrect. The assessee had indeed filed objections on 27th September 2023, with an acknowledgment annexed to the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the assessee failed to file objections to the proposed additions was correct, and if not, what is the consequence? (Question of fact and law, concerning procedural fairness in assessment proceedings). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that objections were duly filed on 27th September 2023, as evidenced by the acknowledgment, and the AO's finding to the contrary was erroneous. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through Mr. Suresh Kumar, conceded that the AO's conclusion regarding the non-filing of objections was incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 447-aswp-14924-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14924 OF 2023 Dinesh Laxman Patil …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Ruturaj H. Gujar i/b Mr. Tanmay M. Phadke for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 20th February 2024 PC:- 1. After the petition was heard for sometime, Mr. Suresh Kumar in fairness agreed to a query raised by the Court that the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) in the impugned assessment order dated 23rd October 2023 that assessee has not filed any objections for the proposed addition is incorrect. Assessee had filed objections on 27th September 2023 as per the acknowledgment annexed at Exhibit-N to the petition. 2. Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned assessment order dated 23rd October 2023. Matter is remanded for de novo consideration. The assessment order to be passed after giving a personal hearing to Petitioner, notice whereof to be communicated atleast five working days in advance. The assessment Gitalaxmi

2/2 447-aswp-14924-2023.doc order shall be a reasoned order dealing with all the submissions of Petitioner. 3. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated and demand notice issued under Sections 271 and 156 respectively are also quashed and set aside. 4. Petition disposed. 5. The assessment proceedings shall be concluded by 31st May 2024. 6. We clarify we have not made any observations on merits of the matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.02.22 11:21:12 +0545

More judgments on Section 271

All 211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →