Sri Sai Swadhin Commercial Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central), Direct Taxes Building

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3834 OF 2022 Sri Sai Swadhin Commercial Private Limited, R/o Bhadrayya Street, Jaypore, Koraput, Odisha, Rep. by Ramesh Jami, S/o Siva Sai. … Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Direct Taxes Building, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam-17 … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate. Counsel for the respondent : Ms. M. Kiranmayee, Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax. ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14.02.2022 (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax, for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief: “….to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly, declaring the impugned orders passed by the respondent herein under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, vide F.No. Pr.CIT(C)/263/SSCPL/2020-21 dated 15.03.2021, for the assessment year 2015-16 AND 2016-17 as illegal, arbitrary and void-ab-initio and against the principles of natural justice and consequently struck down the same in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further orders ….” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that identical matter though relating to a different assessment year was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.18021 of 2021 which was disposed of by common order by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.09.2021. It was submitted that the writ petition was allowed and the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam, who is the respondent herein and the authority was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and further, for completion of the exercise, a time limit of three months from the date of communication of the order was fixed. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax does not dispute the position. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of in similar terms. 6. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent, who is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be concluded within three months from the date of communication of the order and the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter. No order as to costs. 7. The Court would observe that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the matter. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of. ________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) Pab ______________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD) Pab HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.3834 OF 2022 Date : 14-02-2022 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.3834 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEETSl.OFFICE ORDER NoDATE NOTE 1. 14.02.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J and G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J(Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate judgment) B/o. Pab Pab