Wp-1631-2021.Doc v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1631 OF 2021 Rhenus Logistics India Private Limited …Petitioner Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer and Ors. …Respondents … Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jeet Kamdar i/by Mr.Atul Jasani for the Petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. ... CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ DATED :25[th] August, 2021. P.C.: Petitioner seeks quashing of an Order dated 9[th] June, 2021 as well as the demand and penalty notices, both dated 9[th] June, 2021, on the primaryground that the orders/notices impugned have been issued withoutfollowing principles of natural justice. 2Petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 15[th] April, 2021 for 64-wp-1631-2021.doc Assessment Year 2018-2019 along with draft Assessment Order. Petitionerwas directed to submit reply on or before 19[th] April, 2021, i.e., within fourdays. Petitioner submitted its detailed reply dated 18[th] April, 2021 in whichrequest for personal hearing was also made. This reply was submitted on19[th] April, 2021 as mentioned in the e-proceedings responseacknowledgment which is a system generated acknowledgment. Petitioneralso received a separate auto generated message on 19[th] April, 2021confirming that the request for personal hearing through V.C. has beensubmitted successfully. Since the request for personal hearing has beenincluded in the reply dated 18[th] April, 2021 submitted on 19[th] April, 2021,by acknowledging the receipt of request of personal hearing, the departmenthas also acknowledged the receipt of reply dated 18[th] April, 2021. On 9[th]June 2021, Assessment Order came to be passed in which there is referenceto the reply submitted by Petitioner to the show cause notice. Strangely inthe Affidavit-in-Reply dated 28[th] July, 2021 to the Petition, it is averred thatthe reply which was submitted on 19[th] April, 2021 was never uploaded onITBA portal and was not even visible on the day the affidavit was affirmed.It is also stated that the request for personal hearing was also made throughvideo conferencing in the said reply and as that reply itself was not availablein the ITBA portal, the Officer could not discuss with JCIT nor the Petitioner 64-wp-1631-2021.doccould be provided an opportunity for VC with JCIT. In the same Affidavitin the subsequent sentence the Officer also states that the Petitioner hadraised request for video conferencing on the ITBA portal which wasinadvertently overlooked by the Assessing Officer. Of course, they have alsoraised an excuse of having to work from home under very difficultcircumstances due to the COVID Pandemic. 3We have to observe that what is averred in the Affidavit-in-Reply iscontrary to what is there in the Assessment Order and there is total nonapplication of mind in filing the Affidavit-in-Reply. At the same time, in viewof what is stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply, we cannot express any satisfactionthat Petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice has been given dueconsideration. Certainly and admittedly, Petitioner has not been granted apersonal hearing which was requested. 4In the circumstances, we set aside the Assessment Order dated 9[th]June, 2021 and remand the matter back for de-novo hearing. Respondentsmay pass such order that they deem fit after considering the Reply dated18[th] April, 2021 uploaded on 19[th] April, 2021, copy whereof is annexed atExh.M to the Petition and also by granting a personal hearing and hearing Petitioner as per Rules. 5We hasten to add that we have not expressed any views on the merits ofPetitioner’s case. 6Petition disposed. Digitallysigned byREKHAREKHAPRAKASHPRAKASHPATILPATILDate:2021.08.3118:18:22+0530 (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (K.R.SHRIRAM, J.)