M/S Kundan Rice Mills v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
11 Aug 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
M/S Kundan Rice Mills v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
11 Aug 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In M/S Kundan Rice Mills v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-28808-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision :11[th] August, 2020
M/s Kundan Rice Mills
Versus
Petitioner
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
* * *
Present : Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the Respondent.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
* * *
1. One of the grounds in the present petition challenging the order dated 23[rd]September, 2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘IT Act’), transferring the case involving the Petitioner to the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-14, New Delhi is that it is not a reasoned order.
2. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“In response to above, the assessee filed a reply dated 27.08.2019 and requested to grant an opportunity of being heard before the final decision on this regard. Accordingly, final opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee vide this office letter/notice dated 09.09.2019 fixing the case of 16.09.2019. In response to the same, the assessee filed the reply on 16.09.2019 and 23.09.2019. The replies of the assessee were considered carefully and after consideration, the same were not found tenable.”
3. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, learned Counsel for the Respondent, is not able
to dispute that the above order is not a reasoned one and thus is contrary
to a whole line of decisions of the Supreme Court including the one in
Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes (1976) 102 ITR 281
(SC).
4. Consequently, on the short ground that the impugned order dated 23[rd]September, 2019 is unreasoned, the same is set aside and the matter concerning the order under Section 127 of the I.T. Act is remitted to the
Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Karnal to be continued from the stage of the reply of the Assessee having been filed on 16[th] and 23[rd]September, 2019.
5. The Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Karnal will now pass a fresh reasoned order dealing with all the submissions of the assessee not later than 30[th] October, 2020 and communicate the same to the Petitioner not later than 6[th] November, 2020.
6. If such order is adverse to the Petitioner, it will be open to it to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. The pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.
[S. MURALIDHAR] JUDGE
11[th]August, 2020 Pankaj baweja
JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned :
Yes / No
Whether reportable :
Yes / No
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.