IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai City-IX, Mumbai – Respondent
Income-Tax Appeal No. 302 of 2002
Decided on : 11-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. A short but interesting question has arisen in the present proceedings though not raised as a question of law, however, in the context of the appellant’s contention that the proceedings would stand covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Ventura Textile Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-II, (2020) 117 taxmann.com 182 (Bom.). The question is as to whether an alleged defect in the notice issued to the appellant under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act, in regard to which the appellant had never raised an objection from the very inception, that is since last 30 years (from 19 August, 1993), can now be permitted to be raised, in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the appellant - assessee.
2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “I.T. Act”) is filed by the appellant/assessee, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30 October, 2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”) whereby the respondent/Revenue’s appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short “CIT(A)”) has been allowed. Earlier the CIT(A) by its order dated 05 February, 1996, as impugned before the Tribunal, had set aside the penalty of Rs.33,34,096/- imposed on the appellant/assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
3. At the outset, we may observe that by an order dated 14 September, 2004, the present appeal came to be admitted by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law:
4. The appeal was pending hearing, when before us, an oral application on behalf of the appellant was made contending that the appeal stands covered by the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ventura Textile Ltd. (supra) and for such reason the appeal needs to be allowed. This Court at such stage considered the rival contentions of the parties including the submissions as advanced by learned amicus curiae, who was earlier appointed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17 December, 2021, recording questions which would be required to be considered if the plea as urged on behalf of the appellant was to be accepted. The Court, accordingly, passed the following order on 13 July, 2023:-
2. We have perused the observations of the Court in such decision and more particularly in paragraphs 20.1 and 20.2, whereby the Division Bench has observed that even if a question was not raised before the tribunal, the same can be raised before the High Court in the proceedings under Section 260-A of the Act, when the issue is on jurisdiction. In our opinion, there cannot be any quarrel on such proposition.
3. The question, however, would be whether an assessee can be permitted to raise a technical plea of vagueness in the notice when the same was never the case of the assessee before the tribunal. The assessee never complained that the notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was never understood by it or the same was in any manner vague or defective and had caused any prejudice to the assessee. In fact, now merely relying on the said decision, it is for the first t
Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (LS) 1020]
A.K.Roy v. Union of India 1982 (1) SCC 271
Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 965
A.K.Kraipak L Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1969 (2) SCC 262
B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (LS) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]
Board of High School & Intermediate Education v. Chitra Srivastava [(1970) 1 SCC 121]
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India [(1990) 1 SCC 613]
Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mastek Ltd.
ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727]
K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [(1984) 1 SCC 43]
Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India 1984 (3) SCC 465
Mahender Singh Gill v. Chief Election commissioner (1978 (2) SCR 272
McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement & Anr.
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1980 (4) SCC 379]
Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
Janakinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa, 1969 (3) SCC 392
K. L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P.[(2006) 2 SCC 315 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 295 : (2006) 1 Scale 265
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1999) 6 SCC 237])
Managing Director, E.C.I.L. V. B Karunkar
P.D. Agrawal vs State Bank Of India & Ors.
P.D. Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC 776 : (2007) 1 SCC (LS) 43
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460]
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717]
State of U.P. Vs. Harendra Arora & Anr.
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379]
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717]
State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190 : JT (2006) 1 SC 19]
State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S. K. Sharma
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union (1981 (1) SCC 664)].
Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Mustafa & Najibai Trading Co. & Ors.
Penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAB defective if it fails to specify applicable clause, vitiating proceedings for violating natural justice by denying specific charge awareness.
Natural justice is context-dependent; its violation must demonstrate actual prejudice to affect the legality of administrative actions like environmental compensation assessment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.