Case LawHigh Court › Wp/4233/2021 Of Nivrutti Sudamrao Navale...

Wp/4233/2021 Of Nivrutti Sudamrao Navale (Huf) v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Pune And Ors

High Court 30 Aug 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/4233/2021 Of Nivrutti Sudamrao Navale (Huf) v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Pune And Ors
Date of order
30 Aug 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/4233/2021 Of Nivrutti Sudamrao Navale (Huf) v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5, Pune And Ors, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Digitallysigned byMEERA1/3MEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.09.0111:25:51+0530 ---- Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b Ms Farzeen Khambatta for PetitionersMr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATED : 30[th] AUGUST 2021 P.C. : 1In all these petitions, the impugned order was passed after giving onlyabout one day’s notice. Petitioners have approached this court raising agrievance that the action by respondents is against principles of naturaljustice and for quashing of the impugned order. One Mr. K.P.C. Rao,Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune, on behalf of respondents hasfiled affidavit affirmed on 27[th] August 2021 in each of the petitions. Paragraph 4 of the each of the affidavit reads as under: “4. I say that, it is clear that the assessee was given only one day’sopportunity to submit the details by the last notice dated 03.02.2020,which is not in consonance of the principles of natural justice.Therefore, without going into any of the merits of present matter, Isay that the respondent submits to the appropriate directions of thisHon’ble Court including remand to the Revisional Authority for freshconsideration of the matter in hand.” 2Mr. Walve states that the court may quash the impugned order andremand the matter back for denovo consideration in view of paragraph 4quoted above. 3In view of the above, the order impugned in each of the abovepetitions, all dated 10[th] February 2020, is hereby quashed and set aside.Matter is remanded back to the concerned authority for denovoconsideration. Petitioners’ rights and contentions are kept open. We have not made any observations on the merits of the case. The concernedauthority to grant a personal hearing to petitioners as per the rules and pass the necessary orders within 6 weeks from today. 4All petitions disposed. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan