M/S SHRI ADINATH GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ICHALKARANJI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3775/2024HC BombayHCBM01010425202420 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the respondent authorities erred by issuing notices and orders using the petitioner's old PAN number, which pertained to its former status as a trust, instead of its current PAN number reflecting its status as an Association of Persons. The Court found that this fact was brought to the attention of Respondent No. 2 in the stay application but was not considered in the impugned order. The Court disagreed with the revenue's submission that this aspect could be ignored while considering the stay application. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions for the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeals (Acknowledgment Nos. 542395140061223 and 542541920061223) on or before April 30, 2024. A personal hearing was mandated, with at least five working days' notice. Until the disposal or April 30, 2024, the impugned demand was stayed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Shri Adinath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) directing the assessee to pay 10% of the demand. The core issue was that all notices and orders were issued citing the petitioner's old PAN number (AAJTS9836M), which pertained to its status as a trust, instead of its new PAN number (AAZAS2470E), which reflects its current status as an Association of Persons. This critical fact was brought to the attention of Respondent No. 2 (likely the assessing officer or appellate authority) in an appeal/stay application but was not considered in the impugned order. The High Court noted that Respondent No. 2 could not have ignored this fact while considering the stay application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities erred by issuing notices and orders using the petitioner's old PAN number (AAJTS9836M) instead of its new PAN number (AAZAS2470E), thereby failing to consider the petitioner's correct legal status as an Association of Persons? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that all proceedings, including the impugned order, were based on an incorrect PAN number, which misrepresented its legal status. This oversight by the revenue authorities led to the non-consideration of crucial facts in the stay application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through Mr. Gupta, submitted an argument that the High Court disagreed with, specifically regarding the respondent's ability to ignore the PAN number issue while considering the stay application. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's broader arguments on the merits of the PAN number discrepancy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 907-wp-3775-24-order-2.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3775 OF 2024 M/s Shri Adinath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Nandani

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ichalkaranji & Ors.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Bhuvanesh Kankani for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 20th MARCH 2024 P.C. : 1 After the petition was heard for sometime, though in the petition, the order impugned is passed by the PCIT directing assessee to pay 10% of the demand, we are satisfied on the point that all notices have been issued and orders have been passed citing the old Pan number of petitioner, i.e., AAJTS9836M instead of new Pan number of petitioner, i.e., AAZAS2470E. The old Pan number pertains to status of petitioner when it was a trust and the new Pan number pertains to status of petitioner as Association of persons. 2 This was brought to the notice of respondent no.2 in the appeal / application for stay, which has not been considered or dealt with in the impugned order. Respondent no.2 ought to have considered it while considering the application for stay. Respondent no.2 could not have Meera Jadhav:-This order has been corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order date 19th April 2024. MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.04.24 12:12:14 +0530

2/2 907-wp-3775-24-order-2.doc ignored or closed his eyes to this fact by saying he will not look into that aspect while considering the stay application. We totally disagree with the submission of Mr. Gupta on this aspect. 3 Therefore, we dispose the petition with the following directions: (a) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, shall hear petitioner’s appeals

bearing

Acknowledgment

No.542395140061223

and Acknowledgment No.542541920061223 and the same shall be disposed by CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, on or before 30th April 2024. (b) Before passing any order, a personal hearing shall be given to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five working days in advance. (c) Until 30th April 2024 or earlier disposal of petitioner’s appeals, the impugned demand is stayed. 4 Petition disposed.

(Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav:-This order has been corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order date 19th April 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →