Manoj Ramji Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle 26(3) And 2
High Court
12 Jun 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Manoj Ramji Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle 26(3) And 2
Date of order
12 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Manoj Ramji Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle 26(3) And 2, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: If any penalty notice has been issued consequent tothe assessment order, that notice also stands quashed and set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2020
Manoj Ramji GuptaVersus
…Petitioner
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 26(3) and 2Ors.
…Respondents
….
Mr. Devendra H. Jain, for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents.
….CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.DATED:12[th] JUNE, 2023
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
P.C.:
1.One of the preliminary grounds raised in the Petition and assubmitted by Mr. Jain that though Petitioner as legal heir of one late RamjiHiralal Gupta had provided all documents including copies of return ofincome tax etc. in response to notice dated under Section 142(1), in theimpugned order dated 26.12.2019 Respondent No.1 has stated that thelegal heirs of the Assessee had submitted only documents relating to thelegal heirs and there was no submission in response to notice underSection 142(1) and show cause notice. Mr. Jain submitted on this countalone the impugned order has to be quashed and set aside. This is inaddition to the submission of Mr. Jain that notice itself has been issued toa dead person and therefore, non est in law.
2.Having considered the Petition and documents annexed to thePetition, in our view, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the
Assessing Officer. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matterwe quash and set aside the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 togetherwith the notice of demand dated 26.12.2019 and remand the matter forde-novo consideration. If any penalty notice has been issued consequent tothe assessment order, that notice also stands quashed and set aside. IfPetitioner wishes to file further reply to the show cause notice dated21.12.2019, Petitioner may do so within four weeks from today.
3.Respondent No.1 shall pass assessment order within six weeks ofreceiving the reply after giving a personal hearing to Petitioner. Notice ofpersonal hearing shall be communicated within five working days inadvance. If the Assessing Officer is going to rely upon any judgment, a listthereof shall be made available to Petitioner along with notice of personalhearing so that Petitioner will be able to deal with / distinguish the sameduring the personal hearing. If Petitioner wishes to file written submissionrecording what transpired during the personal hearing, the same will befiled within three working days of the personal hearing.
4.Petition disposed.
5.It is made clear that we have not made any observation on themerits of the matter.
[ M. M. SATHAYE, J. ]
[ K. R. SHRIRAM, J. ]
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.