Wpa/10033/2021 Of M/S. Parvati Resources Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer,Ward

28.06.2021 cl 26 s. bhar W.P.A 10033 of 2021 (via video conference) M/s. Parvati Resources Pvt. Ltd.-Vs- Income Tax Officer, Ward- 12(3)/Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder ... for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Kr. TrivediMr. M.N. Bandopadhyay ….for the Respondents Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 29.3.2021 passed by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, (PCIT), Kolkata-2 undersection 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the groundthat before passing the impugned order, learnedCommissioner has not considered the objection of thepetitioner dated 26[th] March, 2021 received by him and itis submitted by the petitioner that his objection has gotstrong material which goes to the root of the case andnon-consideration of the same before passing theimpugned order is a gross violation of principles of naturaljustice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondentIncome tax authority has submitted on a writteninstruction dated 9[th] June, 2021 received by him from hisclient that in spite of receiving show-cause notice on 17[th]March, 2021 fixing the time limit for uploading counter comments on 19[th] March, 2021, no reply was receivedfrom the petitioner till 26[th] March, 2021 and the draftorder under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act wasapproved for uploading after incorporating all thematerials available on 26[th] March, 2021 and being a timebarring matter the impugned order was uploaded on 29[th]March, 2021. Considering the submission of the parties and onperusal of record, I find that the contention of therespondents that it was time barring matter is notacceptable in view of the fact that the relevant assessmentorder to be revised was received by the petitioner on 4[th]February, 2020 and as per the statute, limitation is twoyears from the date of receipt of such assessment order,so, the time for passing the impugned order was becomingbarred on 3[rd] February, 2022 and in view of this fact, therespondent Commissioner could have easily consideredthe aforesaid objection of the petitioner on 29[th] March,2021. There was enough time available to theCommissioner but hastily he passed the impugned orderon 29[th] March, 2021. The impugned order dated 29[th] March, 2021 passedby the Commissioner is set aside on the ground ofviolation of principles of natural justice by not consideringthe aforesaid objection dated 26[th] March, 2021 of thepetitioner before passing the impugned order in spite ofhaving enough time for passing the impugned order, orderdated 29[th] March, 2021 being Annexure-P/5 to the writpetition, with a direction upon the Ld.Commissioner/respondent no. 2 to consider afresh thecase of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speakingorder and strictly in accordance with law after givingopportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorisedrepresentative, within eight weeks from the date of thecommunication of this order. Let it be recorded that this court has not gone intothe merits of the case and the respondent commissioner isfree to decide the aforesaid objection by applying hisjudicial mind. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)