GANPATI ASSOCIATION vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15755/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01087365202417 July 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assessee when a revision petition is decided under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that procedural fairness dictates that an assessee should be heard before a revisional authority passes an order affecting their case. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.03.2024 was set aside. The Court directed the respondent-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the revision petition afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The operative direction is to grant a fresh hearing and decide the matter anew. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ganpati Association, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that they were not granted a fair opportunity of hearing while the revisional authority passed the impugned order. The respondent-Revenue initially submitted that a hearing was not required as the case was thoroughly examined, but agreed to grant an opportunity of hearing if directed by the Court. The dispute pertains to the procedural fairness in the revision proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revisional authority, while deciding a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is obligated to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee who has filed the application. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 264 of the 1961 Act). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not granted a fair opportunity of hearing by the revisional authority while passing the impugned order under Section 264 of the 1961 Act and would be satisfied if granted such an opportunity. Revenue's contention: The respondent-Revenue initially submitted that a hearing was not required as the petitioner's case was thoroughly examined. However, they conceded that an opportunity of hearing would be granted if the Court directed it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15755-2024

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118

CWP-15755-2024

Date of Decision: 17.07.2024 Ganpati Association

…Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

…Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: - Mr. Sunil Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing counsel,

for Income Tax Department

(through Video Conferencing)

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he would be satisfied, if the revisional authority grants him opportunity of hearing. It is his further submission that while passing the impugned order under Section 264 of 1961 Act, the petitioner was not granted fair opportunity of hearing. MOHIT KUMAR 2024.07.17 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-15755-2024

-2-

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue submits that the same was not required as case of the petitioner was thoroughly examined by the respondent, however, if this Court directs, an opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner.

4.

Keeping in view the above, we decide this petition on the limited question of granting opportunity of hearing while deciding revision petition under Section 264 of 1961 Act. Accordingly, we hold that respondent, while deciding revision petition under Section 264 of 1961 Act, shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee who had moved an application thereto.

5.

In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid limited point. We set aside order dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure P- 15) with a direction to respondent, who after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall decide the same afresh.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE 17.07.2024 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2024.07.17 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →