OPTRA HEALTH PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE AND ORS

A Return of Income was filed for the relevant Assessment Year 2017- 18 in the name of Optra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 25 th November 2017; however, by that date, the name of the company had already been changed, with the approval and sanction of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide communication dated 31 st January 2017. It needs to be stated that the PAN number reflected in the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year was correctly mentioned. On account of a mismatch between the PAN number reflected on the Income Tax Return and the name of the company, a communication dated 29 th May 2018 came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, asking the petitioner to rectify the defects within a period of fifteen days from the date of 1/4 51-WP-8861-2022.doc Dixit

The case set up in the present writ petition as also before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was that the requisite rectification could not be incorporated pursuant to the communication dated 29 th May 2018 within the prescribed fifteen days time inasmuch as the other e-mail, on which such a communication had been addressed, belonged to Mr. Prasad Sathe, the previous Chief Finance Officer, who had left the company. This explanation was disbelieved by the concerned authority, as reflected in the order impugned, on the ground that Mr. Prasad Sathe had continued to be in the employment of the company since substantial salary of Rs.26,88,137/- had been paid to him by the company during the financial year 2018-19. In those circumstances it was held that the explanation rendered for not being able to file rectified Income Tax Return was unacceptable. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances in which Mr. Prasad Sathe remained associated with the company and also the fact that he was not associated actively in the day-to-day functioning of the company. However, 2/4 51-WP-8861-2022.doc Dixit

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had dealt with all aspects of the matter in detail, including the explanation rendered by the petitioner for its inability to file Income Tax Return within the time prescribed and that there would be no purpose of sending or remanding the matter back for being considered afresh, as was prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard, especially when such an opportunity was sought for by it. The petitioner would also furnish all such material, as the said authority may 3/4 51-WP-8861-2022.doc Dixit

Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned dated 9 th September 2021 passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune and remand the matter back to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune for passing appropriate order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

The petition is disposed in the above terms. [ VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. ] [ DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. ] 4/4 51-WP-8861-2022.doc Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2022.10.12 11:47:35 +0530