Vinod Bhagwan Wadhwani v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-3, Thane & 3 Ors

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2022.03.0912:04:40+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 783 OF 2022 Vinod Bhagwan Wadhwanivs.1. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax-Circle-3, Thane& 3 Ors. ...Petitioner ...Respondents ***** Mr.Devendra Hastimal Jain for petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangle a/w. Mr. P.A. Narayanan, Mr.Vipul ArunBajpayee and Mr.Venkatesh Anchan for respondents-revenue. CORAM :K.R. SHRIRAM &N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.DATE : 8[th] MARCH, 2022 P.C.: 1.On 6[th] December 2021, the following order came to be passed in Writ Petition (OS) No. 2763 of 2019 for the assessment year 2012-13 : “1 Paragraph 6 of the order dated 13[th] January 2020reads as under: "The cases arising under thisjurisdiction would generally turn on thecombination of facts of each case. It is notbeing argued before us that because ofthere was only an intimation under Section143(1) of the Act, the jurisdictionalrequirement under Section 147 of the Actneed not be present. We have perused thereasons in this case and the objections fledby the Petitioner giving explanation andcreditworthiness of the Petitioner. The orderpassed by the Respondent No.1 – Assessing Offcer disposing of the objections, do notshow application of mind qua the objectionsraised by the Petitioner. Firstly there is areference to fact that there was no scrutinyassessment, then the objection of thePetitioner on law regarding jurisdiction iscommented on then it is stated that earlierno documents could be examined because itis the case of intimation under Section143(1) of the Act, then the Assessing Offcerreproduced the paragraphs regarding whatis meant by “reasons to believe” and passedthe order. In view of the fact that there isabsolutely no application of mindwhatsoever while disposing of the objectionsto the factual errors and factual aspectspointed out by the Petitioner, we fnd thatarguable case is made out." 2 We have once again perused the orderdisposing the objections and echo the observations asquoted above. In fact, we would add that the order lacksbonafdes. Therefore, the order dated 26th September2019 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded fordenovo consideration and it should be placed before anAssessing Offcer, who was not the Assessing Offcer, whopassed the order dated 26th September 2019. 3 Accordingly, petition disposed. Respondentsshall inform petitioner within two weeks about the link /communication for the personal hearing. Respondent no.1may pass such orders as he deems ft but it should be a”reasoned order dealing with all submissions of petitioner. (emphasis supplied) 2.Mr.Kotangale states that the order on objections has been disposed by another Assessing Offcer. Though Mr.Kotangale tried his best to justify the order, when he was confronted with thecontents of the order, Mr.Kotantale has to agree that this order dated 18[th] January 2022 purportedly in accordance with thedirections passed by this Court also is devoid of reasons. TheOffcer has not dealt with the submissions of petitioner on merits. We would add, this order also lacks bonafde. 3.We, therefore, set aside the order dated 18[th] January 2022and remand the matter back, to be listed before the JurisdictionalAssessing Offcer (JAO), who shall pass a reasoned order, aftergiving a personal hearing to petitioner, notice of which shall begiven atleast seven working days, in advance. 4.If the JAO is going to rely on any order or judgment of anyCourt or tribunal, a list thereof shall be provided to petitioneralong with the notice of personal hearing, so that petitioner candeal with/distinguish those orders/judgments during thepersonal hearing. 5.The fresh order on objection shall be passed by theAssessing Offcer, other than the Offcer, who had handled thepetitioner’s case earlier. We would add, this order also lacks bonafde. 3.We, therefore, set aside the order dated 18[th] January 2022and remand the matter back, to be listed before the JurisdictionalAssessing Offcer (JAO), who shall pass a reasoned order, aftergiving a personal hearing to petitioner, notice of which shall begiven atleast seven working days, in advance. 4.If the JAO is going to rely on any order or judgment of anyCourt or tribunal, a list thereof shall be provided to petitioneralong with the notice of personal hearing, so that petitioner candeal with/distinguish those orders/judgments during thepersonal hearing. 5.The fresh order on objection shall be passed by theAssessing Offcer, other than the Offcer, who had handled thepetitioner’s case earlier. 6.For not complying with our directions in true letter andspirit, we direct the Assessing Offcer, who has passed theimpugned order dated 18[th] January 2022, to pay from hispersonal account a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as donation to PM Cares. The details of the account are asunder :- 7.From the affdavit of Ms.Aparna M. Aggarwal, affrmed on16[th] February 2022, it appears that one Mr.Mukesh KumarSolanki, ITO (ReFAC) (AU)-4, Ahmedabad has passed theimpugned order, dated 18[th] January 2022. The said Mr.MukeshKumar Solanki shall pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- within twoweeks and shall fle an affdavit in compliance thereof, to whichshould be annexed the Bank Statement of Mr.Mukesh KumarSolanki to prove that this amount has been paid from hisaccount. This affdavit shall be fled within three weeks fromtoday. 8.Petition disposed. 9.Petition be, however, listed on 6[th] April 2022 for compliance. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)