RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/8778/2023HC BombayHCBM03026226202306 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court accepted the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the revenue. The Court deemed the proceedings initiated on March 31, 2023, as dropped. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to initiate fresh proceedings. Crucially, the Court stipulated that the Petitioner shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the Authority shall follow the due procedure laid down in law. The Court also clarified that the dropping of the earlier proceedings should not be used by the Petitioner as a ground to object to the initiation of new proceedings. The Writ Petition was partly allowed with these directions, and the Civil Application was disposed of as it would not survive.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravindra Jaisingrao Chavan, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated on March 31, 2023. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an affidavit-in-reply. Within this affidavit, it was admitted that an "human error" occurred during the issuance of the final order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, a crude draft was pasted instead of the approved copy, and a part of the rebuttal from another case was mistakenly included. This resulted in the petitioner's submissions not being considered. The affidavit acknowledged that in similar cases, High Courts have directed respondents to pass fresh orders after considering the petitioner's submissions. The respondents prayed for a direction to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) and issue a notice under Section 148, or alternatively, to drop the proceedings initiated on March 31, 2023, and allow fresh proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated on March 31, 2023, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are vitiated due to an "human error" leading to the non-consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the error renders the proceedings invalid and seeks a fresh, properly conducted process. The affidavit-in-reply, filed by the revenue, acknowledges the error and suggests a course of action. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its affidavit-in-reply, admits to an "human error" in the final order under Section 148A(d), where a crude draft was pasted and a part of another case's rebuttal was included, leading to the petitioner's submissions not being considered. The revenue concedes that in similar situations, High Courts have directed fresh orders. The revenue prays for a direction to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) and issue a notice under Section 148, or to drop the current proceedings and allow fresh ones.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8778 OF 2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2613 OF 2024 RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN VERSUS OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Mr. R. R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. S. S. Deve, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 6th MARCH, 2024 PER COURT :- 1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the respective sides. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply dated 1st August, 2023. We find from internal page 4, running page No. 97 of the affidavit-in-reply, as under: “A copy of this draft order u/s 148A(d) is marked as Exhibit R-1. After considering the contents of the draft order u/s 148A(d) the PCIT (Central), Nagpur has accorded approval u/s 151 of the IT Act. However while issuing the final copy of order u/s 148A(d) on 31/03/2023 an human error had occurred by mistake. Therefore, instead of sending the approved copy enclosed as Exh. R-1 one crude draft prepared earlier was pasted in the System. Further, the part of rebuttal of some other case was pasted by mistake. Due to this inadvertent mistake, it appears that submission of the petitioner was totally remained to be considered. However the fact is that submission of the petitioner was duly considered while preparing the draft order u/s 148A(d) which was approved by the Pr. CIT (Central) Nagpur. It is seen that in large number of cases, where 918.wp8778.23.odt 1 of 2 2024:BHC-AUG:5702-DB

the petitioner’s submission was remained to be considered while passing order u/s 148A(d), Hon’ble High Court has considered the situation and issued order to the Respondents to pass fresh order after considering the submission of the petitioners. In view of above it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may (1) Order may kindly be passed with a direction to pass fresh order u/w 148A(d) and of notice u/s 148 may kindly be issued or otherwise. (2) Order may kindly be issued to drop this proceedings initiated on 31/03/2023 and allow the Respondent No. 1 to take fresh proceedings.” 2. In view of above, the statement set out in the affidavit-in- reply is accepted and the proceedings initiated on 31st March, 2023 are deemed to be dropped. Respondent No.1 would initiate fresh proceedings. The Petitioner shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the Authority shall follow the due procedure laid down in law. The dropping of the earlier proceedings shall not give rise to a ground for the Petitioner to raise an objection that the earlier proceedings have been dropped and therefore new proceedings cannot be initiated. 3. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The Civil Application would not survive and stands disposed off. ( R. M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ssp 918.wp8778.23.odt 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →