SUCHITA AMIT KAMTHE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER THR. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7326/2021HC BombayHCBM01033153202104 December 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court agreed with the petitioner that the respondents had been unfair in providing such a short time to respond. On this ground alone, the assessment order dated 30th September 2021 and the consequential orders (penalty notice under Section 274 and demand notice under Section 156) were quashed and set aside. The Court also found that the order on objections, dated 25th September 2021, had not considered all submissions made by the petitioner, and therefore, it was also set aside. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's objections submitted via letter dated 23rd September 2021, grant a personal hearing, and dispose of the objections within four weeks. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Suchita Amit Kamthe, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging two orders passed by the Income Tax Department. The first order, dated 25th September 2021, disposed of the petitioner's objections to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening assessment. The second set of orders, dated 30th September 2021, included an assessment order, a notice for penalty under Section 274, and a notice of demand under Section 156. The petitioner contended that the order on objections did not consider all her points, and the assessment and consequential orders were passed without sufficient time for her to respond or be heard, citing a short response window of less than 24 hours for a notice issued on 28th September 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 25th September 2021 disposing of the petitioner's objections to the Section 148 notice is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of all objections. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the assessment order dated 30th September 2021, along with the penalty notice under Section 274 and demand notice under Section 156, are liable to be quashed for being passed without sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to explain and without a proper hearing. (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and Section 148/156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the authority failed to consider all objections raised against the reopening of assessment. Furthermore, the assessment and consequential orders were passed hastily, with an unreasonably short response time (less than 24 hours) provided for a notice issued on 28th September 2021, and without affording a proper hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 274,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 925.WP-7326-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7326 OF 2021 Suchita Amit Kamthe ….Petitioner V/s. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer & Ors. ….Respondents ---- Ms. Farzeen Khambatta for petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 4th DECEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1 At the outset, Ms. Khambatta tenders draft amendment, which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 2 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out and notwithstanding disposal of the petition, a copy of the amended petition, for completion of records, shall also be served on respondents within one week from today. 3 Ms. Khambatta raises two grievances (a) that the order dated 25th September 2021 disposing the objections raised by petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) has to be quashed because the authority has not considered all the objections and points raised by petitioner as to why petitioner's assessment should not be reopened and (b) the assessment order, which has been passed on 30th September 2021 alongwith notice for penalty under Section Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2021.12.06 14:50:48 +0530

2/2 925.WP-7326-2021.doc 274 and notice of demand under Section 156 of the said Act, both dated 30th September 2021, have been passed without giving sufficient time to petitioner to explain and without hearing petitioner. Ms. Khambatta states that the notice as to why the proposed variation should not be made was issued on 28th September 2021 and petitioner was directed to respond by 23:59 hours on 29th September 2021. 4 We would agree with Ms. Khambatta that respondents have been most unfair in giving such a short time and on this ground alone, the assessment order dated 30th September 2021 and the consequential orders require to be quashed and set aside. 5 Ordered accordingly. 6 Since the order on objections passed on 25th September 2021 also has not considered all the submission made by petitioner, the same is also set aside. Respondents to consider petitioner's objections submitted vide letter dated 23rd September 2021 and after giving a personal hearing to petitioner to dispose of objections within four weeks from today. 7 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the case. 8 Petition disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →