Wp/57/2019 Of Devchhaya Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -8,Pune And Ors

Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.57 OF 2019 Devchhaya Industries… Petitioner V/s. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-taxCircle-8, Pune.… Respondent --- Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar with Mr.Rohan Deshpande i/by Ms.AlishaPinto for the Petitioner.Mr.Sham Walve for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 14, 2019. P.C.:- 1.This petition under Article 226 challenges the order dated10[th] August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(“the Tribunal” for short). The impugned order dated 10[th] August,2017 dismissed the petitioner's application for rectification undersection 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short)seeking rectification of the order dated 25[th] May, 2016 passedunder Section 254(1) of the Act. The order dated 25[th] May, 2016 was in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.The grievance of the petitioner to the impugned order dated10[th] August, 2017 is limited to the fact that the ground urged inits application for rectification that the order dated 25[th] May, 2016did not deal with its grievance of additional evidencesproduced before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)being rejected without any justification, was not dealt with in theimpugned order dated 10[th] August, 2017. This even after havingrecorded the above grievance of the petitioner in its impugnedorder dated 10[th] August, 2017 as the grievance urged in groundNo.5 in the application. No other grievance is being urged by thepetitioner before us. It is the case of the petitioner that theadditional evidence which was sought to be produced before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) goes to the root of thematter and the consideration of the additional evidence wouldhave vital impact on result of the appeal for the Assessment Year2009-10. Priya Soparkar of the ground of rectification is evident from reading of theimpugned order dated 10[th] August, 2017. This is even notdisputed by the Revenue. Thus, there is flaw in the decisionmaking process leading to the impugned order dated 10[th] august,2017. 4.In the above view, it is clear that the Tribunal ought to havedealt with the above issue (urged as ground No.5) in theMiscellaneous Application for rectification and taken a view on it.Therefore, we direct the Tribunal to decide above issue urged asground No.5 by the petitioner in its rectification application dated30[th] November, 2016 and pass an order on the same afterfollowing the principles of natural justice. 5.Petition allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)….