Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Agrawal vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 July, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: MAIN SEAT
AT JABALPUR
1 Case number Writ Petition No.9126/2017
Rohit Agrawal
2 Parties Name Versus
The Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax-II & another
3 Date of 04/07/17
Order
4 Bench HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND HON.
Consituted SMT. ANJULI PALO, JJ
of
5 Order Hon'ble Shri S.K. Seth, J.
delivered by
6 Whether
approved for
reporting Yes
Name of the Shri G.N. Purohit, Senior
counsel for Advocate with Shri Abhishek
7 parties Oswal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
8 Law laid Law relating to revision under
down Section 264 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961.
9 Significant
paragraph
numbers -----
(S.K. SETH) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
4
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: MAIN
SEAT AT JABALPUR
(DIVISION BENCH: HON. SHRI S.K. SETH AND
HON. SMT. ANJULI PALO, JJ)
WRIT Petition No.9126/2017
Petitioner : Rohit Agrawal
Versus
Respondents : The Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax-II & another
__________________________________________
Shri G.N. Purohit, Senior Advocate with
Shri Abhishek Oswal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
__________________________________________
O R D E R
(04.07.2017) This petition is basically under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the validity of the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Petitioner is an individual. From an AIR information submitted by the Bank, it came to the knowledge of Income-Tax Department that the total deposit of Rs.16,31,700/- was credited in his saving account during the Financial Year 2009-10, therefore, after notice under Sections 148 4 and 142(1) of the Act, an ex-parte assessment order was framed, not only holding that the petitioner is liable to pay tax but also penalty under Sections 271F and 271(1)(c) of the Act. This order was not challenged in appeal. According to petitioner, it is only when the demand notice was served on him, he became aware of this assessment order, therefore, he challenged it in revision under Section 264 of the Act before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur. By the order impugned, revision petition has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Shri G.N. Purohit, Senior counsel at lenght and perused the material available on the record.
4. Shri Purohit submits that while exercising the revisional powers, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur has a vast jurisdiction to do justice between the parites and when necessary material was placed before the revisional authority, it was his duty to pass an appropriate order or in the alternative matter ought to had been remanded back for the fresh assessment.
5. Shri Purohit has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sajan Kumar Bhawsinka Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & another reported in (1999) 236 ITR 0038 . He has further placed 4 reliance on two decisions of Gujrat High Court in the case of C. Parikh & Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda reported in (1980) 122 ITR 0610 and S.R. Koshti V. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2005) 276 ITR 165 .
6. After having heard arguments, considering the material available on record and the well reasoned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. Learned Principal Comissioner of Income Tax-II, Jabalpur has anlysed the facts in detail and thereafter has dismissed the revision. The reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable on the facts because of the cryptic order passed by the revisional authority under Section 264 of the Act and equally cryptic order passed by the High Court.
7. The order passed under Section 264 of the Act is a detailed order with reasons and after condsidering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the various decisions as mentioned in the order itself, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is a cryptic order. From perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that despite several opportunities, the petitioner did not 4 avail any opportunity to account for the deposit of Rs.16,31,700/- in his saving account. As result, ex-parte assessment order was framed. Petitioner was also given notice to pay the penalty, this too was not also availed of by the petitioner and it is only when the penalty order was passed and recovery proceedings started, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 264 of the Act. If we acceed to submissions of Shri Purohit, then in each case assessee will allow to proceed ex- parte and after limitation for filing appeal is over ask for quashing of ex- parte assessment order by invoking Section 264 of the Act. This cannot be the lagislature in proving remedy Under Section 264 of the Act.
8. From the material available on record, it is clear that petitioner is to thank himself for inviting all these troubles by not responding to the various notices issued to him by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, find no merit and substance in the petition. Same is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Ordered accordingly.
(S.K. SETH) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
@shish
4