Dusane

1/8

23 wp 1100.2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1100 OF 2021

Haren Textiles Private Limited

having business address at

Opp. Civil Aviation Department,

Near Dahisar Check Naka,

Western Express Highway,

Dahisar (East) – 400 068

P.A. No. AAACH3166K

....

Petitioner

Vs.

1 Principal Commissioner of

Income-Tax 4, having his office

at Room No. 629, 6^th Floor,

Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road,

Mumbai – 400 020

email : mumbai.pcit4@incometax.gov.in

….

Respondent no.1

2. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Circle 12(2), having his office

at Room No. 145, 1^st Floor,

Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road,

Mumbai – 400 020

email : mumbai.dcit12.2.2@incometax.gov.in….

Respondent no.2

Mr. Jintendra Singh for Petitioner

Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondents-Revenue

Dusane

2/8

23 wp 1100.2021.doc

Coram : K.R. SHRIRAM &

ABHAY AHUJA, JJ

Date : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

JUDGMENT (Per K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) :

1.

Petitioner is impugning an order dated 18^th March, 2021

passed by Respondent No. 1, i.e., Principal Commissioner of Income-

Tax (PCIT), Mumbai- 4 rejecting a Revision Petition filed under Section

264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) impugning the order

passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 270 AA(4) of the Act.

2.

Petitioner, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing

and selling fabrics and also a trading member in the National Stock

Exchange filed its Return for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 on 31^st

October, 2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,27,11,320/-. Respondent

No. 2, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax initiated scrutiny

assessment by issuing statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and

142(1) of the Act. Petitioner replied to these notices from time to time

and also furnished all details and documents. Respondent No. 2 passed

an Assessment order dated 19^th December, 2019 under Section 143 (3)

Dusane

3/8

23 wp 1100.2021.doc

of the Act determining total income of Petitioner at Rs.7,41,84,730/-.

Respondent No. 2 determined book profit under the provisions of

Section 115 (JB) of the Act at Rs.2,19,33,505/-. Following this

assessment order, Respondent No. 2 issued demand notice dated 19^th

December, 2019 under Section 156 of the Act raising a demand of

Rs.1,80,14,619/-. As Petitioner found that Respondent No.2 had not

correctly allowed the Minimum Alternate Tax (M.A.T.) credit available to

Petitioner while determining the tax liability, Petitioner filed an

application dated 6^th January, 2020 under Section 154 of the Act

seeking rectification of the assessment order. Respondent No.2

accepted the submissions of Petitioner and granted M.A.T. credit

available to Petitioner and issued the revised Computation Sheet dated

14^th January, 2020 determining the correct amount of tax liability of

Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 also issued revised notice of demand

dated 14^th January, 2020 under Section 156 of the Act raising demand

of Rs.57,356/- payable within 30 days from the service of the said

notice.

Dusane

4/8

23 wp 1100.2021.doc

3.

Petitioner accepted the order passed by Respondent No. 2

under Section 154 of the Act and on 29^th January, 2020 paid fully the

tax demand determined at Rs.57,356/-. This amount was paid.

4.

Thereafter, Petitioner on 30^th January, 2020 filed an

application under Section 270 (AA) of the Act in the prescribed Form

No. 68, before Respondent No. 2 seeking immunity from penalty etc.

This application was rejected by Respondent No. 2 by an order dated

28^th February, 2020. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an

application dated 18^th December, 2020 before Respondent No.1 under

the provisions of Section 264 of the Act. Respondent No. 1, rejected

Petitioner’

s application on the ground that Sub-Section 6 of Section 270

(AA) specifically prohibits revisionary proceedings under Section 264 of

the Act against the order passed by Assessing Officer under Sectio