Divyang Mahendrakumar Yagnik v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

C/SCA/5964/2012 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5964 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ DIVYANG MAHENDRAKUMAR YAGNIK....Petitioner(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 07/05/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated April 16, 2012 at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax. By such order, the Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the petitioner's revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').April 16, 2012 at Annexure-A to the petition passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax. By such order, the Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the petitioner's revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. For the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner had filed a return declaring gross total income of Rs.9,50,726/-. After claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.1,12,984/-, the petitioner had indicated his total income at Rs.8,37,742/-. The case of the petitioner, however, is that this was due to an arithmetical error. The Chartered Accountant, who filled in the prescribed form of the return, had added a sum of Rs.5,82,883/- to the gross income of the assessee of Rs.3,67,843/-, which sum was separately treated. This sum of Rs.5,82,883/- comprised of dividend, interest of PPF, etc. These were either exempt from tax or were separately already accounted for. It was on account of this error that the return containing the figures of gross and net incomes of the assessee in excess by Rs.5,82,883/-. 3. The return of the assessee was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the petitioner applied for rectification. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the application, upon which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the petition without granting hearing to the petitioner. 4. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the entire issue is required to be considered by the Commissioner after hearing the petitioner. It is an undisputed position that no that the entire issue is required to be considered by the Commissioner after hearing the petitioner. It is an undisputed position that no Aakar incomes of the assessee in excess by Rs.5,82,883/-. 3. The return of the assessee was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the petitioner applied for rectification. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the application, upon which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the petition without granting hearing to the petitioner. 4. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the entire issue is required to be considered by the Commissioner after hearing the petitioner. It is an undisputed position that no that the entire issue is required to be considered by the Commissioner after hearing the petitioner. It is an undisputed position that no Aakar personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated April 16, 2012 is quashed. The proceedings are placed back before the Commissioner. The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner on June 02, 2014. No separate notice of the first hearing would be necessary. We clarify that we have fixed this date only to eliminate the stage of issuance of notice to the petitioner. If it is not convenient to the Commissioner to conduct the hearing on such date, it would be open for him to reschedule the hearing. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)