NARINDER KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9090/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01039784202128 April 2021Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by passing a speaking order within 15 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. This reconsideration is to be done after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 04.05.2021 or any other date fixed by the respondent. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that the respondent's counsel could not deny that the application for amendment of grounds of appeal had likely not been considered when the impugned order was passed, and that it would be appropriate to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, without commenting on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that applications for amendment filed during the pendency of a scheme application should be considered, and a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing is necessary.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narinder Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.04.2021, by which his application under Section 4(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act) was rejected. The rejection was based on a report from the Assessing Officer (AO) stating that the appeal filed by the assessee on 09.01.2019 was defective concerning the assessed income, date of order, and date of service of order. The petitioner contended that during the pendency of his VSV application, he discovered inadvertent factual errors in his appeal and had filed an application for amendment of the grounds of appeal, which was not considered when the impugned order was passed. The respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, accepted notice. The Court noted that the respondent's counsel could not deny that the application for amendment might not have been considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was justified, considering the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of his appeal grounds during the pendency of the VSV application? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 4(1) of the VSV Act and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that his application for amendment of appeal grounds was on record and should have been considered before rejecting his VSV application. He contended that the rejection was summary and did not take into account the pending amendment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel, while not in a position to deny the facts, stated they were not in a position to verify them as a copy of the petition was not provided. However, they did not deny that the application for amendment might not have been considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 4(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.9090 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.04.2021 Narinder Kumar ...... Petitioner versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *** Present :- Mr. Satish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) as per which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act No.3 of 2020) (VSV Act) has been rejected on the following grounds :- “As per report of concerned A.O. the appeal filed by the assessee on 09.01.2019 was defective in terms of the assessed income, date of order, date of service of order. Therefore the case has been rejected.” Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. As per petitioner during the pendency of the application under the VIVAD SE VISHWAS Scheme it came to his notice that there were some inadvertent factual errors in his appeal and he had moved an application for amendment of the grounds of appeal but while deciding the prayer that fact was not considered and even though the proceedings were pending, it was summarily held that the appeal was defective. POOJA SHARMA 2021.04.29 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.9090 of 2021 (O&M) -2-

We put it to the learned counsel for the respondent that in these circumstances without commenting on the merits of the case it would be appropriate if a fresh order is passed on his application under the VIVAD SE VISHWAS scheme after hearing the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent states that since a copy of the petition was not handed over to him he is not in a position to verify the facts. However, he is not in a position to deny that the fact of the application for amendment being on the record does not seem to have been considered while passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P-1) with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after giving him an opportunity of hearing. For this purpose, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 04.05.2021 or on any other date which respondent may fix in this regard. Petition stands disposed of with the above terms. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE

( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) JUDGE 28.04.2021 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2021.04.29 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 4(1)

All 45 judgments and leading authorities on Section 4(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →