BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9745/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01107664201708 May 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without entering into the controversy of service of notice or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, considered it appropriate to dispose of the petitions by directing Respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-2). This decision is to be made by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 15.05.2017. The operative direction is to decide the pending representation, effectively deferring a decision on the impugned order until the representation is addressed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court chose to direct the authority to decide the representation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Brij Bhushan Sharma, a director of M/s Corus Builders Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 02.03.2017 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. A representation dated 17.03.2017 was submitted to Respondent No. 1, seeking a decision on it before the impugned order could be enforced. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the decision of this representation. The revenue accepted notice through its counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 02.03.2017 passed under Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed without issuing any notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The order was passed without notice and hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 179(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- CWP No.9745 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9745 of 2017 Date of decision: 08.05.2017 Brij Bhushan Sharma

....Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: - Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9745, 9746, 9750 and 9758 of 2017 as, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, factual matrix of prayer and the relief claimed are similar. For brevity, facts are being extracted from CWP No.9745 of 2017. 2. M/s Corus Builders Pvt. Ltd. is a company, which is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in which petitioner is one of the Directors. Respondent No.2 has passed order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been impugned in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the same has been passed without issuing any notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been prayed in the writ petition that against the aforesaid order dated 02.03.2017 a representation dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure P-2) has been submitted to respondent No.1. It was submitted that same may be decided before order Annexure P-1 could be made operational. Ravinder Singh 2017.05.12 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2- CWP No.9745 of 2017 3. Notice of motion to the respondents. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-revenue. Requisite number of copies of the writ petitions have been handed over to learned counsel for the revenue. 5. Without entering into the controversy of service of notice upon the petitioner and expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the present petitions by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on Annexure P-2 by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from today. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 15.5.2017. 6. Disposed of.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) May 08, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2017.05.12 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →