M/S SUNIL HI TECH ENGINEERS LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND ORS vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2245/2017HC BombayHCBM01036439201622 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 the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue. The Revenue stated that the impugned order dated April 11, 2016, and the show cause notice dated January 13, 2016, were being withdrawn. The Revenue also sought liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh order under Section 127 of the Act, if advised. Liberty was granted to the Revenue as prayed. In view of the Revenue's statement and the liberty granted, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought to withdraw the Petition. The Petition was disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the above statement. No specific finding was given on the merits of the transfer order itself, as it was withdrawn by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s. Sunil Hitech Engineers Limited & Others, challenged an order dated April 11, 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 petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 11, 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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners challenged the validity of the transfer order. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding the grounds for challenging the order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the impugned order dated April 11, 2016, as well as the show cause notice dated January 13, 2016, were being withdrawn.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 advised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 127(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

wp-2245-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2245 OF 2017

M/s. Sunil Hi­tech Engineers Limited & Others .. Petitioners. v/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­14 & 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   11th  April,   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 11th April, 2016 as well as the show cause notice dated 13th January, 2016 is being withdrawn. However, the learned Counsel for the Revenue seeks liberty to S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2

wp-2245-2017 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 →