ALDRIN ALBERTO ARAUJO SOARES vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/756/2023HC BombayHCBM05003077202304 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application for speaking to the minutes of the order. The Court directed that the necessary corrections should be carried out in the original order and the updated order uploaded on the website. The reasoning was based on the submission by the revenue that the assessment was faceless, necessitating the change in the designation of the Assessing Officer. The application for speaking to the minutes was disposed of. No other issues were decided on merits as this was a procedural correction.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an application for speaking to the minutes of an order dated March 4, 2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 756 of 2023 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner is Aldrin Alberto Araujo Soares, and the respondents are the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and two others. The application was filed on March 13, 2024. The core of the application relates to a correction in the original order concerning the designation of the Assessing Officer (AO). The revenue, represented by Ms. Linhares, submitted that the assessment was faceless and requested a substitution in paragraph 25 of the order. Specifically, the reference to 'AO (Circle-I), Panaji Goa' was to be replaced with 'Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department'.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the designation of the Assessing Officer in paragraph 25 of the order dated March 4, 2024, requires correction to accurately reflect the faceless assessment procedure, as per the submission of the revenue. Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): No specific contentions recorded in the judgment regarding this application. Revenue (Respondents): Submitted that the assessment in this matter is faceless and therefore, the reference to 'AO (Circle-I), Panaji Goa' in paragraph 25 of the order dated March 4, 2024, should be substituted with 'Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department'.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP 756 of 2023 Amrut IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.756 OF 2023 ALDRIN ALBERTO ARAUJO SOARES ... PETITIONER Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 2 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Mr H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms S. Linhares, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI MENEZES, JJ. DATED :- 3rd April, 2024 P.C.: This is an application dated 13.03.2024 for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 04.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.756 of 2023. 2. Ms Linhares submits that the assessment in this matter is faceless. Accordingly, in Para 25 referred to AO (Circle-I), Panaji Goa, will have to be substituted by " Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department". 3. The above substitution is allowed. Necessary corrections should be carried out in the original order and the order uploaded on the website. Page 1 of 2 3rd April, 2024

WP 756 of 2023 4. This application for speaking to the minutes is disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J. Page 2 of 2 3rd April, 2024 AMRUT NAGESH TARI Digitally signed by AMRUT NAGESH TARI Date: 2024.04.05 14:38:29 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →