UNNATI FORTUNE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16406/2024HC DelhiDLHC01085808202427 November 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court treated the writ petition as a representation to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The Court directed the CIT to consider the petition as the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The CIT was also empowered to seek further clarification or information as deemed necessary. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the defective return or the turnover calculation. The petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Unnati Fortune Industries Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an intimation dated 24.12.2022 issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This intimation declared the petitioner's return for Assessment Year 2021-22 as defective. The petitioner contended that the conclusion that its turnover exceeded ₹10 crores, necessitating a tax audit report under Section 44AB, was erroneous. The Revenue suggested that the petitioner should first exhaust its administrative remedies by approaching the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) before pursuing judicial recourse. The petitioner agreed to this approach.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the intimation dated 24.12.2022, issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring the petitioner's return for AY 2021-22 as defective, is erroneous, specifically concerning the determination of the petitioner's turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the conclusion that its turnover exceeded ₹10 crores was erroneous and that it was not required to submit a tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue suggested that the petitioner should first approach the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) on the administrative side to exhaust available remedies, as the CIT has the power to rectify or recall the impugned intimation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(9),Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16406/2024 and CM APPLs. 69114-15/2024 UNNATI FORTUNE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha with Mr Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS......Respondents Through: Mr Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms Prathistha Choudhary, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 27.11.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia impugning an intimation dated 24.12.2022 issued under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the Assessment Year (AY) 2021- 22 whereby it was communicated that the petitioner’s return for the relevant AY is defective. 2. The petitioner submits that the said conclusion is erroneous and that the petitioner was not required to submit a tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Act as its turnover was less than ₹10 crores. He submits that the conclusion that the petitioner’s turnover exceeds the said amount is erroneous. 3. Mr Aseem Chawla, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 11:48:13

states that it would have been apposite for the petitioner to first exhaust his remedies by approaching the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter CIT) on the administrative side before taking any judicial recourse. He submits that if a representation is made by the petitioner, the same would be considered by the learned CIT as he has the power to rectify or recall the impugned intimation. 4. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that he would have no objection if the present petiton is treated as a representation by the learned CIT and an appropriate order is passed thereon. 5. In view of the above, we direct the learned CIT to consider the present petition as the petitioner’s representation and pass such order as it deems fit after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The learned CIT is also entitled to call for any further clarification or information as he may consider necessary for considering the petitioner’s case. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 27, 2024/ tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/12/2024 at 11:48:13

More judgments on Section 139(9)

All 234 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →