UDDHAV BABURAO NIMSE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5557/2022HC BombayHCBM01012274202206 May 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the assessment order dated January 22, 2022, and the consequent demand and penalty notices. The Court found that the assessment order did not even reference the petitioner's request for an adjournment, stating instead that the assessee had not availed of opportunities. This indicated a lack of consideration for the petitioner's circumstances. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order by August 31, 2022, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The notice for the personal hearing must be issued at least seven working days in advance. If the Assessing Officer intended to rely on any High Court or Tribunal orders, a list of these must be provided with the hearing notice to enable the petitioner to respond.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Uddhav B. Nimse, challenged the final assessment order dated January 22, 2022, and consequent demand notices under section 156 and penalty notices under sections 271 and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed despite a reasonable request for an adjournment, which was denied. The petitioner cited the need for time to gather information from multiple sources and the impact of COVID-19, including family members testing positive, as reasons for the adjournment request. The assessment order itself did not refer to the adjournment request and stated that the assessee had not availed of opportunities provided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order dated January 22, 2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, is liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds that it was passed without considering the petitioner's reasonable request for an adjournment, which was necessitated by the difficulty in gathering information due to COVID-19 and family illness. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the adjournment request was reasonable and its denial led to an arbitrary assessment. The assessment order failed to acknowledge or address this request, despite the petitioner's inability to gather information. The petitioner relied on the principle that a fair opportunity must be provided to the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments regarding the adjournment request and the validity of the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156,Section 271,Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

943-cwp-5557-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5557 OF 2022 Uddhav B. Nimse

… Petitioner V/s. Additional / Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income -tax Officer and ors. … Respondents ---------------- Mr. Rahul Hakani a/w. Mr. Ajay Singh i/b Mr. Dalal Sameer Gulam for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. ----------------

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : MAY 06, 2022. P.C. 1] Petitioner is impugning final assessment order dated 22.01.2022 and consequent demand notices under section 156 and penalty notice under section 271 and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2] The basis of challenge is that the assessment order has been passed notwithstanding petitioner’s reasonable request for an adjournment because gathering of materials from multiple sources will require time and due to Covid, petitioner, who is an individual, was unable to gather the information and data and his family members were also tested positive for Covid. According to petitioner, request for adjournment has been unreasonably denied and the assessment order has been passed followed by penalty proceedings. Dinesh Sherla 1/2 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2022.05.09 13:31:55 +0500

943-cwp-5557-22.doc 3]

We have considered the assessment order and in that there is not even a reference to the request for adjournment and it simply states that opportunity has been provided to the assessee, but he has not availed of any opportunities. 4] Therefore, we quash and set aside the assessment order dated 22.01.2022 and remand the matter for denovo consideration. Consequent demand notice and penalty notice are also quashed. 5] The Assessing Officer shall pass fresh assessment order on or before 31.08.2022, after giving a personal hearing to petitioner. The notice for personal hearing shall be issued atleast seven working days in advance. If the Assessing Officer wishes to rely on any order or judgment of any High Court or Tribunal, then a list thereof shall be provided to petitioner alongwith the notice of personal hearing so that petitioner may be able to deal with/distinguish those orders/ judgments. 6] Petition disposed with no order as to costs.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Dinesh Sherla 2/2

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →