Bharat FIH Private Limited V. The office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India

WP/22520/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Bharat FIH Private Limited, which challenged an order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order was void, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. The primary contention was that the facts incorporated in the impugned order were not applicable to the petitioner's case and were not part of the show cause issued. The Income Tax Standing Counsel acknowledged the possibility of a technical error but noted that no rectification had been made. The court found the response from the Income Tax Counsel to be fair and reasonable, leading to the decision to remand the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796748 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Section 92CA(3) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N HARINATH; M KIRANMAYEE
• Assessee Lawyers: S VIVEK CHANDRASEKHAR
• Keywords: Impugned order; Rectification of mistake; Remand to Original Authority; Violation of natural justice; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 92CA(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.22520 of 2021 M/s Bharat FIH Private Limited, (Formerly known as Rising Stars Mobile India Private Limited) No.380, Belerica Road, Sri City, Siddam Agraharam Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District -517 541 Represented by its CFO, Authorized Signatory Mr.Ramachandran Kunnath, S/o Gopalakrishnan Kulavil, aged about 55 years, r/o Chittoor District. ….Petitioner Versus The office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax DC/ACIT TP 3, AAYAKAR Bhawan, Opposite L.B.Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 004 and another ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.S.Vivek Chandrasekhar Counsel for the respondents : Mr. N.Harinath, Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India. Ms. M.Kiranmayee, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax. ORAL JUDGMENT Dated: 01.11.2021 (per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr.S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner; Mr.N.Harinath, Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and Ms. M.Kiranmayee, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned 2 order dated 31.07.2021 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for AY 2018-19 in PAN:AAHCR2906G in DIN & Order No. ITBA/TPO/F/92CA3/2021-22/1034560310(1) as being void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders….” 3. The contention of the petitioner in brief is that the impugned order has incorporated facts, which were neither applicable to the case of the petitioner, nor part of the show cause issued to him and any assessment made on the basis of such order is vitiated, both on facts as well as law. 4. On a query, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax on the short issue, such fact is not denied. However, she submitted that the authority has the power to rectify the mistake, which may have occurred due to technical error, but it is not denied that no rectification order has been passed. 5. Faced with the situation, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax submitted that the matter be remanded to the Original Authority/ respondent no.1 for reconsideration, after hearing the petitioner, based on the original show-cause issued to him. 6. The Court finds that the stand taken by learned Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax is fair and reasonable. 7. Accordingly, with consent of the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority/ respondent no.1 to consider the issue afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law on merits. 3 8. The Court would only observe that the respondent no.1 shall pass reasoned order on each and every issue raised by the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Authority. The Court would also observe that the petitioner would co-operate in the said proceedings. As a consequence, any order passed by the Authority, pursuant to the impugned show cause notice also stand set aside. 9. The Writ Petition stands allowed in the aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of. _______________________________________ (JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) ________________________________ (JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN) KK 4 THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN Writ petition No.22520 of 2021 Date: 01.11.2021 KK "