SHRIKANT PHULCHAND BHAKKAD (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA SHRIKANT PHULCHAND BHAKKAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers

WP/14336/2021HC BombayHCBM03042468202122 April 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to modify its previous judgment dated 22.04.2022. The Court agreed to delete paragraph 68 of the original judgment. Consequently, paragraphs 72 and 73 were also deleted. The Court clarified that the petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any order passed by the assessing officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as permitted by law. The Court directed the office to correct the paragraph numbers in the judgment and issue a fresh copy to both parties. The principle established is that the High Court can correct its own judgments to ensure clarity on procedural remedies available to parties, particularly concerning the appellate hierarchy within the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

This matter comes before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad for "Speaking to the Minutes" concerning a judgment previously delivered on 22.04.2022. The petitioner, Shrikant Phulchand Bhakkad (HUF), is represented by its Karta, Shrikant Phulchand Bhakkad. The respondents are the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, and others. The issue arose from a praecipe moved by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Alok Sharma, who pointed out that paragraph 68 of the prior judgment, which dealt with the next steps after an objection was rejected and upheld by the Court, required clarification. The respondents' counsel argued that the next step for the assessing officer would be to pass an assessment order, and if the petitioner was aggrieved, they would need to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's prior judgment correctly outlined the procedural steps following the rejection of the assessee's objection and its affirmation by the Court, specifically regarding the issuance of an assessment order and the assessee's appellate remedy. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel, Mr. R. R. Chandak, did not dispute the legal position presented by the respondents' counsel regarding the procedural steps. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel, Mr. Alok Sharma, contended that in light of the order rejecting the petitioner's objection and this Court upholding that rejection, the assessing officer's next step would be to pass an assessment order. He further argued that if the petitioner was aggrieved by this assessment order, their recourse would be to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 903-WP-14336-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.14336 OF 2021 SHRIKANT PHULCHAND BHAKKAD (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA SHRIKANT PHULCHAND BHAKKAD VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Alok Sharma ... CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & S. G. MEHARE, JJ. DATE : 26-04-2022 PER COURT :- Matter is placed on board for “Speaking to the Minutes” in the Judgment dated 22.04.2022 delivered by this Court on the praecipe moved by Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel has invited our attention to the paragraph no. 68 of the said Judgment and would submit that in view of order rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner assessee and the same having been upheld by this Court in the Judgment dated 22.04.2022, next step would be for the assessing officer to pass the assessment order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the assessing officer, petitioner would

2 903-WP-14336-21.odt have to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Mr. R. R. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute about this position of law canvassed by Mr. Sharma, learned special counsel for respondents.

We, accordingly, delete paragraph no. 68 from the Judgment dated 22.04.2022. The Office is directed to correct the paragraph numbers in the said judgment and issue fresh copy of the said Judgment to both the parties.

In view of deletion of paragraph no. 68, we also delete paragraph no. 72 and 73, and clarify that the petitioner will have remedy to challenge the order passed by the assessing officer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The petitioner would be at liberty to agitate the issue before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as is permissible in law.

( S. G. MEHARE ) ( R. D. DHANUKA ) JUDGE JUDGE

rrd

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →