Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Ramgopal Ochhavlal Maheshwari vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 October, 2018

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia

       C/TAXAP/1258/2018                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2018

==========================================================
               RAMGOPAL OCHHAVLAL MAHESHWARI
                           Versus
            THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA


                       Date : 15/10/2018
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. Appellant-assessee has challenged the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Two grounds are raised before us. Firstly, that the Tribunal proceeded on wrong factual assertion that notice under section 271AAB was issued by the Assessing Officer though after the assessment was completed. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Assessing Officer had initially issued notice under section 271AAA of the Act along with order of assessment but, later on, issued a corrigendum providing that reference to the section would be read as 271AAB instead of 271AAA. In fact, no separate notice under section 271AAB was ever issued. Second contention of the Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 27 15:01:37 IST 2019 C/TAXAP/1258/2018 ORDER counsel was that, in any case, sanction, for initiation of penalty proceedings as required under the law, was not obtained.

2. In our opinion, the first contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Even if the Tribunal has provided on the wrong basis assuming incorrectly that a separate notice under section 271AAB was issued, the petitioner cannot argue, in facts of the present case, that the entire proceedings were vitiated. This is so for the reason that admittedly the Assessing Officer, after having initially issued notice under section 271AAA, shortly issued corrigendum correcting the reference to the statutory provision as 271AAB. This was thus a case of pure correction of typographical error. The petitioner cannot argue that no valid notice under the law was issued. Concededly such correction also took-place long before the penalty proceedings proceeded further and culminated into the order of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer after giving full opportunity of defending to the assessee.

3. We are however inclined to examine the assessee's second contention regarding prior sanction. In this respect also, our inquiry would be whether initial notice though erroneously titled as one under section 271AAA of the Act was proceeded by sanction.

C/TAXAP/1258/2018 ORDER

4. Notice for final disposal returnable on 26.11.2018.

(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 27 15:01:37 IST 2019