AL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9288/2024HC DelhiDLHC01039430202410 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated March 27, 2024. The Court held that, considering the petitioner's assertion that the mistake of holding two PANs was inadvertent, the ends of justice would warrant setting aside the PCIT's order. The petitioner was granted liberty to institute a fresh revision petition, with the specific direction to ensure that a waiver of the right to appeal is duly averred and asserted therein. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the respective parties are kept open. The operative direction is to set aside the impugned order and permit the filing of a fresh revision petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, AL Consultants Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 27, 2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). This order rejected a revision application filed for Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute arose because the petitioner held two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs). The petitioner had been filing its Income Tax Returns using a new PAN since AY 2012-13, but the application to surrender the old PAN was made only on July 22, 2017. This led to the department being unable to map transactions connected to the petitioner's HDFC Bank account. The PCIT also noted that the petitioner failed to specifically aver waiver of its right to appeal in the revision application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the PCIT erred in rejecting the revision application on merits, considering the petitioner's assertion of inadvertent mistake regarding the dual PANs and the delay in surrendering the old PAN (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). The Assessee contended that the mistake of holding two PANs was inadvertent and that the ends of justice would be served by allowing them to file a fresh revision petition with a proper averment of waiver of appeal rights. The Revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, beyond the PCIT's observations that led to the rejection of the revision application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~192 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9288/2024

AL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Advs.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 & ORS. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

10.07.2024 O R D E R Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 38095/2024 (Ex.) The application shall stand disposed of. 1. The writ petitioner impugns the order dated 27 March 2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“PCIT”] rejecting a revision application which had been preferred for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2017-18. The dispute itself arises in the backdrop of the petitioner holding two Permanent Account Numbers’ [“PANs’”], and details of which stand duly captured in the order impugned before us. W.P.(C) 9288/2024 & CM APPL. 38096/2024 2. However, and as is manifest from a reading of the impugned order penned by the PCIT, the assessee had been filling its Return of Income using its new PAN since AY 2012-13. The application for surrender of the old PAN which had been obtained, however, was made only on 22 July 2017. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 12:12:31

Department was unable to map the transactions which were undertaken by the petitioner and connected to the HDFC Bank account maintained by it. 3. The PCIT has further observed that while preferring the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner had also failed to specifically aver that it had waived its right of appeal. It has, notwithstanding the above, proceeded to hold against the petitioner on merits also. 4. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the assertion of the petitioner that the mistake was inadvertent, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would warrant the impugned order being set aside, with liberty being reserved to the petitioner to institute a fresh revision petition, ensuring that a waiver of the right to appeal is duly averred and asserted therein. 5. Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the instant writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 27 March 2024. We accord liberty to the petitioner to institute a revision application afresh, bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. 6. All rights and contentions of respective parties are kept open.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. JULY 10, 2024/neha

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 12:12:31

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →