Amal Banerjee v. The Commissioner Of Income

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2273 OF 2011 Amal Banerjee. .. Petitioner. versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Mumbai & Ors. ..... .. Respondents. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner. Ms. Suchitra Kamble for Resondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 20 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : Following a notice to show cause under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27 September 2006, an order was passed on 25 January 2007 against the Petitioner for the recovery of the tax dues of the company by the name of M/s. Metroni Drugs Pvt. Ltd. In a revision under Section 264, an –order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax VI on5 November 2007 setting aside the order under Section 179 and proceedings were remanded back. Upon a fresh notice dated 20 July 2009, an order was once again passed on 6 January 2010 calling upon the Petitioner to pay the arrears of tax of the Company. The Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30 March 2011. The grievance of the Petitioner is that none of the objections which have been raised by the Petitioner by a letter dated 15 February 2010 have been dealt with by the Revisional Authority. Ex-facie, it is evident that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. Therefore, we find considerable merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned order should be quashed and set aside and the proceedings should be remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh disposal of the revision application. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, we set aside the impugned order dated 30 March 2011 and restore the revision proceedings under Section 264 to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh disposal. The Petition is, accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)