Bombay High Court
Bla Power Holding Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 15 April, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:6287-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH 1/3 441-oswpl-898-2023.doc
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.04.17
18:37:30
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.898 OF 2024
BLA Power Holding Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) &
Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Madhur Agrawal, with Mr. Smit Shah, for Petitioner.
Mr. Arjun Gupta, for Respondents No.1 and 2-Revenue.
CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED: 15th APRIL 2024
PC:-
1. There are four affidavits being filed today, one by Petitioner through Advocate, Mr. Smit Shah affirmed on 15 th April 2024, an affidavit by one Basant Kumar Arya affirmed on 12 th April 2024, an affidavit in reply filed through Basant Kumar Arya affirmed on 15 th April 2024 and an affidavit of Mr. Arjun Gupta, Advocate affirmed on 15th April 2024.
2. In view of what is stated in these affidavits, the order dated 1 st April 2024 to the extent contained in paragraphs 1 to 4 stand recalled.
3. Since the confusion happened in view of affidavit filed by one Abdul Rehman, Advocate on behalf of Petitioner, we hereby direct Petitioner to reimburse Respondents No.1 and 2 the amounts paid by Shivgan ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 23:48:06 ::: 2/3 441-oswpl-898-2023.doc them to Kirtikar Law Library. Mr. Gupta states, the account details to which amounts to be remitted shall be communicated to Petitioner's advocate by 16th April 2024. Reimbursement shall be made on or before 18th April 2024.
4. In addition, Petitioner shall also give a donation of Rs.25,000/- to Kirtikar Law Library and this amount shall also be paid within one week from today.
5. Having said this, the challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 12th December 2023 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year ("AY") 2011-12. One of the grounds raised and which is the preliminary ground is that the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice inasmuch as a request for personal hearing was not granted by Respondent No.1. In the affidavit in reply affirmed on 15 th April 2024, it is admitted that Petitioner had requested for personal hearing on 14 th September 2022 and repeated on 13th September 2023. The only reason why the personal hearing has not been granted is because Petitioner requested for personal hearing at Mumbai whereas all proceedings are in a faceless regime. There is nothing to indicate that Respondent No.1 informed Petitioner that he would give personal hearing through video conferencing or on a faceless system.
Shivgan
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 23:48:06 :::
3/3 441-oswpl-898-2023.doc
6. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12 th December 2023 and remand the matter to Respondent No.1 for de- novo consideration.
7. Respondent No.1 to pass an order in accordance with law dealing with all submissions made by Petitioner. Before passing an order, a personal hearing shall be given either physically or in faceless manner at the discretion of Respondent No.1 notice whereof shall be communicated at-least five working days in advance.
8. All rights and contentions are kept open.
9. Petition dismissed.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2024 23:48:06 :::