Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ
Tpl ––– Hgiepl Joint Venture – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 13 December 2023 (Exhibit-C) passed under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”), declaring the Petitioner’s return as invalid. Though the impugned order contains no reasons, the Respondent’s reply states that the Petitioner’s return was declared invalid for non-filing a compulsory audit report under Section 44AB of the IT Act.
4. The brief facts in which this challenge arises need to be mentioned. This petition concerns Assessment Year 2022-23, for which the Petitioner filed its income tax return on the department’s portal on 27 July 2022. On 14 December 2022, the Petitioner received a notice, possibly generated by the CPC/Portal, raising defects in the return. This notice stated that the taxpayer, i.e. the Petitioner, had claimed gross receipt or income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” of more than Rs.10 Crore, exceeding the threshold limit under Section 44AB of the IT Act. However, no tax audit report was filed
The absence of reasons in administrative orders violates natural justice, necessitating adherence to fair play and the exhaustion of alternate remedies before judicial intervention.
Compliance with statutory requirements under Income Tax Act is essential even if a party claims misunderstanding; genuine hardship must be assessed to condone filing delays.
Exceptional items from a resolution plan do not count as gross receipts under Section 44AB, thus invalidating the order declaring the return defective.
Excess provisions written back do not constitute 'gross receipts' under Section 44AB, thus not necessitating a Tax Audit Report.
The assessment order was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, breaching principles of natural justice.
The assessment order was quashed due to violations of natural justice and failure to follow mandatory procedures under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative proceedings, and any violation at the initial stage cannot be remedied at the appellate stage.
An intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is revisable under Section 264, and the Principal Commissioner must exercise revisional powers when the time for appeal has expired.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
