CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 PUNE AND 1 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5984/2023HC BombayHCBM01020573202303 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 27th March 2023. The Court directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Order F. No. 187/4/2021-ITA-I dated 20th January, 2021, read with Notification S.O. 117(E) [No.2/2021/F.No.370145/51/2020-TPL] dated 12th January 2021. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was also instructed to consider whether any orders needed to be passed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. Crucially, the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of personal hearing, and appropriate orders were to be passed thereafter. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's non-aversion to a remand and the petitioner's grounds regarding the validity of the Faceless Penalty Scheme and denial of hearing. The ratio is that procedural irregularities, including denial of natural justice and potential misapplication of faceless schemes, warrant remand to the appropriate authority with directions for proper adjudication and adherence to procedural fairness.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Cummins India Limited, challenged an order passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order could not have been passed under the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, and should have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Additionally, the petitioner contended that they were denied a mandatory opportunity of being heard. The Revenue, after taking instructions, indicated it was not averse to the matter being remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The impugned order was dated 27th March 2023.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be issued under the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, or if it was required to be passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer? - Assessee's contention: The order could only be passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not under the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded, but indicated no aversion to remand. 2. Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard, which is mandatory as per the scheme of the Act? - Assessee's contention: The petitioner was denied the opportunity of being heard, which is mandatory. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded, but indicated no aversion to remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

903-WP-5984-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 OF 2023 Cummins India Limited … Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Pune & Anr. …Respondents ***** Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Jitendra Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &

KAMAL KHATA, J.J. DATE : 3rd MAY, 2023. P C : 1. One of the grounds urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner before us, during the course of the hearing on 2nd May 2023, while challenging the order under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was that the order could not have been passed under the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021 and that the same could be passed only by the Jurisdictional Assessing Offcer. Besides this, it was also urged that the petitioner had been denied the opportunity of being heard which otherwise was mandatory as per the Scheme of the Act. Shraddha Talekar, PS 1/2 SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Digitally signed by SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2023.05.09 12:55:02 +0530

903-WP-5984-2023.doc 2. We had granted time to Mr.Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue to take instructions in the matter. After taking instructions, it appears that the Revenue was not averse to the matter being remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Offcer. 3. We, therefore, direct that the Jurisdictional Assessing Offcer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Order F. No. 187/4/2021-ITA-I, dated 20th January, 2021 read with Notifcation S.O. 117(E) [No.2/2021/F.No.370145/51/2020-TPL] dated 12th January 2021. The Jurisdictional Assessing Offcer shall also consider whether any orders need to be passed at all during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner be also given an opportunity of personal hearing and appropriate orders be passed. The impugned order dated 27th March 2023 is quashed. 4. The petition is disposed of accordingly. [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.] Shraddha Talekar, PS 2/2

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →