Aditya Medisales Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/TAX APPEAL NO. 251 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMARandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI ============================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed tosee the judgment ?see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of thejudgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of lawas to the interpretation of the Constitution of India orany order made thereunder ? =============================================ADITYA MEDISALES LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX =============================================Appearance:MR BANDISH SOPARKAR for MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Appellant(s) No. 1MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Opponent(s) No. 1============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 21/09/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR) 1.This Court while issuing notice on this appeal vide order dated 12.03.2009, has admitted the same to consider the following substantial questions of law. “(i) Whether, in the fact and circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat in case of block assessment framed u/s. 158BC r.w.s.,143(3) of the Act, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Actwas not required to be issued within the statutory timeframe prescribed under the Act ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act isa mere procedural lapse and therefore, the same can beregularized and ratified.” 2.We have heard Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Varun K. Patel, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent. 3.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hotel Blue Moon reportedin [2010] 188 Taxman 113 (SC) = [2010] 321 ITR 362(SC), has considered the similar issue namely, whetherAssessing Officer for any reason were to repudiate the returnfiled by the assessee in respond to the notice under Section158BC (a), should he necessarily issue notice under Section143(2) within time prescribed in proviso to Section 143(2), hasbeen held in the affirmative namely, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4.In that view of the matter, the questions of law formulatedin the above appeal is answered in favour of the appellant –assessee. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) phalguni (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)