M/S SUNIL HITECH (INDIA) INFRA PVT. LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND ANR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1207/2017HC BombayHCBM01036441201622 March 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A. K. MENON,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, stated that the impugned order dated March 16, 2016, as well as the show cause notice dated January 15, 2016, were being withdrawn. The revenue sought liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh order under Section 127 of the Act, if so advised. Liberty was granted as prayed. In view of this statement by the revenue, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn in the stated terms, with no order as to costs. No specific finding was given on the validity of the original transfer order as it was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s. Sunil Hitech (India) Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Another, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated March 16, 2016, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13 under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order transferred the petitioners' pending assessment proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle, Aurangabad. The revenue, represented by Mr. Suresh Kumar, stated that both the impugned order and the show cause notice dated January 15, 2016, were being withdrawn. The revenue sought liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh order under Section 127 if advised.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated March 16, 2016, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-13 under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, transferring the petitioners' assessment proceedings, is valid. The petitioners challenged the validity of the transfer order. The revenue, on instructions, stated that the impugned order and the show cause notice were being withdrawn. The revenue sought liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh order under Section 127 of the Act. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for either side regarding the merits of the transfer itself, as the matter was resolved by the withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 127(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

wp-1207-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2017

M/s. Sunil Hitech (India) Infra Pvt. Ltd., & Another .. Petitioners. v/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­13 & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Shraddhanand Bhutada with Mr. Parineet Saratkar i/b. SSP Legal, for the Petitioners. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Respondents. CORAM:  M.S.SANKLECHA, & A.K.MENON, JJ. DATE    : 22nd MARCH, 2017. P.C:­ This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges   an   order   dated   16th  March,   2016   passed   by   the   Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­13, under Section 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's case (pending assessment proceedings) were transferred from Deputy Commissioner of Income   Tax,   Bombay   to   Assistant   Commissioner,   Central   Circle, Aurangabad.

Mr.   Suresh   Kumar,   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the Revenue,   on   instructions,   states   that   the   impugned   order   dated   16th March, 2016 as well as the show cause notice dated 15th January, 2016 is being withdrawn. However, the learned Counsel for the Revenue seeks S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2

wp-1207-2017 liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh order under Section 127 of the Act, if so advised.  Liberty as prayed for, granted.

In view of the above statement made by Mr. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Bhutada, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seek to withdraw the Petition.

Petition disposed of as withdrawn, in above terms. No order as to costs. (A.K.MENON,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →