Optra Health Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8861 OF 2022 Optra Health Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune & Ors... Respondents Mr. P.S. Jaitely, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sham Walve, i/by Mr. Sameer Dalal, forthe Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.J.DATE : 3RD OCTOBER, 2022. P.C. : 1.A Return of Income was filed for the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18 in the name of Optra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 25th November 2017;however, by that date, the name of the company had already been changed,with the approval and sanction of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs videcommunication dated 31st January 2017. It needs to be stated that the PANnumber reflected in the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee for therelevant assessment year was correctly mentioned. On account of a mismatchbetween the PAN number reflected on the Income Tax Return and the nameof the company, a communication dated 29th May 2018 came to be issued bythe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, asking thepetitioner to rectify the defects within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such a communication. The needful not having been done, theIncome Tax Return filed by the assessee was declared to be invalid. With aview to overcome this difficulty, an application under Section 119 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the petitioner before the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune, which was finally rejected by virtue ofthe order impugned dated 9th September 2021 by the Principal ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Pune, as communicated by the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax (HQ) (Coord & Tech), Pune. 2.The case set up in the present writ petition as also before the PrincipalChief Commissioner of Income Tax was that the requisite rectification couldnot be incorporated pursuant to the communication dated 29th May 2018within the prescribed fifteen days time inasmuch as the other e-mail, onwhich such a communication had been addressed, belonged to Mr. PrasadSathe, the previous Chief Finance Officer, who had left the company. Thisexplanation was disbelieved by the concerned authority, as reflected in theorder impugned, on the ground that Mr. Prasad Sathe had continued to be inthe employment of the company since substantial salary of Rs.26,88,137/-had been paid to him by the company during the financial year 2018-19. Inthose circumstances it was held that the explanation rendered for not beingable to file rectified Income Tax Return was unacceptable. Counsel for thepetitioner has tried to explain the circumstances in which Mr. Prasad Satheremained associated with the company and also the fact that he was notassociated actively in the day-to-day functioning of the company. However, Mr. Jaitely, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that had thePrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax afforded the petitioner anopportunity of being heard, as had been prayed vide its communication dated24th March 2021, all these facts could have been explained in detail. It isstated that no justifiable reason is reflected in the order impugned as to whysuch an opportunity of being heard, even when demanded, was not affordedto the petitioner. It is stated that even when Section 119 of the Act did notenvisage grant of personal hearing or granting an opportunity of being heardto the petitioner, yet, since the order impugned would have visited thepetitioner with consequences, such an opportunity of being heard ought tohave been granted. Mr. Jaitely, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that had thePrincipal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax afforded the petitioner anopportunity of being heard, as had been prayed vide its communication dated24th March 2021, all these facts could have been explained in detail. It isstated that no justifiable reason is reflected in the order impugned as to whysuch an opportunity of being heard, even when demanded, was not affordedto the petitioner. It is stated that even when Section 119 of the Act did notenvisage grant of personal hearing or granting an opportunity of being heardto the petitioner, yet, since the order impugned would have visited thepetitioner with consequences, such an opportunity of being heard ought tohave been granted. 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondentsstates that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had dealt with allaspects of the matter in detail, including the explanation rendered by thepetitioner for its inability to file Income Tax Return within the time prescribedand that there would be no purpose of sending or remanding the matter backfor being considered afresh, as was prayed by learned counsel for thepetitioner. 4.Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of theopinion that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of beingheard, especially when such an opportunity was sought for by it. Thepetitioner would also furnish all such material, as the said authority may require, to finally determine as to whether the communication dated 29th May2018 addressed to the erstwhile Chief Finance Officer’s e-mail id wasactually to the knowledge of the company or not. 5.Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned dated 9th September2021 passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune andremand the matter back to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,Pune for passing appropriate order, after affording the petitioner anopportunity of personal hearing. Appropriate orders be passed within aperiod of three months from the date of communication of this order. 6.The petition is disposed in the above terms. [ VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. ] [ DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. ]