PALIWAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, DELHI - 7 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5524/2023HC DelhiDLHC01015827202315 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that if the petitioner's assertion that no appeal was filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 was correct, then the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 would have to be set aside. Upon receiving instructions, the revenue confirmed that no appeal had been filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021. Consequently, the Court found that the impugned order deserved to be set aside. The Court directed that the revision petition preferred under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, be decided on merits by the concerned officer. The concerned officer was also directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative and endeavor to conclude the proceedings within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Paliwal Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Delhi-7. This order dismissed the petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revision petition was against an assessment order dated 29.09.2021, which was passed under Section 143(3)/254/144B of the Act. The assessment order was issued after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had set aside a previous order of the CIT(A) in an earlier round of litigation. The ITAT's order was dated 11.12.2019. In the first round, the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance of Rs. 4,28,65,241/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act via an order dated 20.03.2013.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.03.2023, dismissing the revision petition, is liable to be set aside, given that no appeal was filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021. The petitioner contended that the impugned order, which dismissed their revision petition on the ground that 30 days for filing an appeal had not expired when the revision petition was filed, came as a surprise. They further asserted that no appeal was filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021. The revenue, represented by the PCIT, initially accepted notice and was asked to obtain instructions regarding the petitioner's assertion about the non-filing of an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 144B,Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 5524/2023

Pg. 1 of 3 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 15.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 5524/2023 & CM APPL. 21619/2023

PALIWAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Anshul Mittal, Advocates.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, DELHI - 7 & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

1.

After hearing the counsels for the parties, on previous date [i.e., 01.05.2023] at some length, we had etched out the broad contours of the case. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the orders dated 01.05.2023 are set forth hereafter.

2.

Issue notice. 2.1 Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 4. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the respondent no.1/revenue, in a revision petition preferred by the petitioner/assessee under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”]. 5. The revision petition was directed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021, passed under Section 143(3)/254/144B of the Act. 6. It is averred by the petitioner/assessee that the revision petition was filed on 19.10.2021. Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 14:50:11 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5524/2023

Pg. 2 of 3 7. The record shows that the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 was passed, pursuant to the Tribunal allowing the petitioner/assessee’s appeal in an earlier round. This order was passed by the Tribunal on 11.12.2019, thereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] dated 20.01.2015. 8. In the first round, the Assessing Officer (AO) via assessment order dated 20.03.2013, had made a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 4,28,65,241/-. 9.1 It is, therefore, the contention of Dr Rakesh Gupta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that the impugned order, whereby revision petition was dismissed on the ground that 30 days accorded for filing of the appeal from the date of the order had not expired when the revision petition was filed, came as a complete surprise. 10. Dr. Gupta, on instructions of Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, makes a submission that no appeal was filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021. 11. To our minds, if this assertion of the petitioner/assessee is right, then, the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 would have to be set aside. 12. Since Mr Aggarwal does not have any instructions, at the moment, we are inclined to adjourn the matter, to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter. 12.1 In case instructions are received to resist the writ petition, counter- affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.

2.

Mr Sunil Agarwal, who appears for the counsel for the respondent/ revenue, has returned with instructions. Mr Agarwal confirms that no appeal has been filed against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021. 3. Given this position, as indicated on 01.05.2023, we are of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction that the revision petition preferred under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] be decided on merits. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. Needless to add, before rendering a decision on merits, the concerned officer will grant an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner. For this purpose, notice will be issued fixing the date and time of hearing. Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 14:50:11 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5524/2023

Pg. 3 of 3 4.1 The concerned officer will also endeavour to conclude the proceedings within twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgement. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition and the pending application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE MAY 15, 2023 v

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 14:50:11 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →