Karnataka High Court
M/S Archidply Industries Limited vs The Principal Commissioner on 7 November, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.12843 OF 2017 (T-IT)
Between:
M/s. Archidply Industries Limited
Rep. by its Director Shyam Daga
Aged about 42 years
No.29/2, G.K. Manor, 1st Floor
Nehru Nagar Circle
Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020.
...Petitioner
(By Mr. Shankar A, Advocate)
And:
1. The Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax, Bangalore-I
5th Floor, BMTC Building
80 Feet Road, Koramangala
Bangalore-560095.
2. The Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax, Circle1(1)(1)
BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road
Koramangala, Bangalore-560095.
... Respondents
(Mr. K.V. Aravind, Advocate)
****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari and quash the order passed by the
Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.No.12843/2017
M/s. Archidply Industries Limited Vs.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another
2/5
Respondent No.1 in F.No.Pr.CIT/BLR-1/123/Revsn u/s
264/2016-17 dated 27-02-2017 Annexure-A & etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Mr. Shankar A, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. K.V. Aravind, Advocate for Respondents
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Respondent - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-I, Bengaluru, under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), for the Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby rejecting the revised return filed by the assessee. The petition under Section 264 of the Act of the petitioner assessee has been rejected without giving any prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee.
2. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference.
Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.No.12843/2017 M/s. Archidply Industries Limited Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another 3/5 "3. The assessee's application u/s 264 of the Act dated 10/01/2017 for revision of assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 23/12/2016 for the A.Y.2014-15 has been carefully perused. The assessee had got an acknowledgement for filing revised return on 29/12/2015 showing an income of Rs.12,97,28,560/-. Further, the assessee had considerable time available to file another revised return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 will 31/03/2016. If any mistake had happened at the time of filing revised return of income on 26/12/2015, the assessee could have filed revised return of income till 31/03/2016. the assesse had failed to do so. The profit & loss account and computation of income of the assesse have been verified in detail during the scrutiny proceedings.
4. The facts in the present case is different from the facts of the case laws relied by the assesse in his application and also these cases do not pertain to the jurisdiction in which assessee's case lies.
Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.No.12843/2017 M/s. Archidply Industries Limited Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another 4/5 There is no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 to make amendment in the return of income by modifying the computation of income at the assessment stage other than filing a valid revised return of income. Hence, the application filed u/s 264 of the Act dated 10/01/2017 for revision of assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 23/12/2016 for the assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANUJA SARANGI) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru."
3. A prima facie look at the order itself and there being no contra material to indicate that the said Commissioner had given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee before passing the impugned order, amply show the breach of the principles of natural justice in the present case.
Date of Order 07-11-2017 W.P.No.12843/2017 M/s. Archidply Industries Limited Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another 5/5
4. On this ground alone, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. The Writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order, Annexure A dated 27/02/2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - I, Bengaluru, under Section 264 of the Act is set aside.
6. The said Authority will be free to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee.
7. The petitioner assessee may appear before the Respondent Authority, in the first instance, on 12/12/2017 and a period of six months is allowed to the Respondent Authority to pass appropriate orders.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*