HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED V. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ORS

CWP/27901/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Home Credit India Finance Private Limited as the petitioner against the Income Tax Department and others as respondents. The core issue was the consideration of the petitioner's objections by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) before passing a final order. The petitioner had submitted objections within the prescribed period, but these were not considered in the final order. The court referenced judgments from the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the appellate authority's jurisdiction to correct errors and the necessity of considering all objections before finalizing an order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768497 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Alcatel Lucent India Limited vs. National E Assessment Centre & Anr., Kapurchand Shrimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VARUN ISSAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KULJEET KAUR
• Keywords: DRP; Final order; Income Tax; Objections
• Section: 131; 451

Judgement Text

"CWP-27901-2023 110+278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVATE ASSESSMENT UNIT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Ms. Kuljeet Kaur for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, for the respondents/Revenue. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-4560-CWP Application for placing on record reply is allowed. Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Main case 1. Considering the short issue involved in the present case, we heard the respective counsel on merits. 2023 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 (THROUGH VC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVATE Vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ORS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate and Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Ms. Kuljeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CWP-2024 Application for placing on record reply Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Considering the short issue involved in the present case, we heard the respective counsel on merits. (THROUGH VC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-4560-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-27901-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.07.2024 HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED . . . . Petitioner INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND ORS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Application for placing on record reply on behalf of respondents Registry to place the same at appropriate place. Considering the short issue involved in the present case, we heard the in/and (O&M) .2024 Petitioner s on behalf of respondents Considering the short issue involved in the present case, we heard the MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27901-2023 2. It is an admitted position that before the DRP issued petitioner period of 30 days. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that on account of this irregularity, the order ought not be set aside 4. We have considered in the case of Centre & Anr. In W.P.(C) 4981/2021 the Apex Court in Tax, Andhra Prades was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct the errors in proceedings under appeal. 5. However, while this Court does not in any manner hold that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction objections if any placed on record ought to be considered before passing the final order. 6. In view of the fact that the final order does not take into consideration the objections as raised by the petitioner, we find oursel sustain such an order, and we set aside the order (Annexure P objections which have final order, expeditiously henceforth. If demanded, personal hearing may be provided to the petitioner. 2023 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 It is an admitted position that before the DRP issued petitioner had already submitted its objections within the prescribed period of 30 days. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that on account of this irregularity, the order ought not be set aside We have considered the law as considered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Alcatel Lucent India Limited vs. National E Assessment Centre & Anr. In W.P.(C) 4981/2021, and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kapurchand Shrimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1981 ITR SC 131 451 was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct the errors in proceedings under appeal. However, while this Court does not in any manner hold that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction objections if any placed on record ought to be considered before passing the final order. In view of the fact that the final order does not take into consideration the objections as raised by the petitioner, we find oursel sustain such an order, and we set aside the order (Annexure P-5) with further direction to the DRP to consider the objections which have already been raised by the petitioner and pass a final order, expeditiously, say within a period of three months henceforth. If demanded, personal hearing may be provided to the petitioner. It is an admitted position that before the DRP issued final direction, the had already submitted its objections within the prescribed Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that on account of this irregularity, the order ought not be set aside. nsidered by the High Court of Delhi Alcatel Lucent India Limited vs. National E Assessment , and also the judgment passed by Kapurchand Shrimal vs. Commissioner of Income h, Hyderabad, 1981 ITR SC 131 451, wherein it was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct the However, while this Court does not in any manner hold that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to correct errors in proceedings, objections if any placed on record ought to be considered before In view of the fact that the final order does not take into consideration the objections as raised by the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to sustain such an order, and we set aside the order dated 29.09.2023 with further direction to the DRP to consider the been raised by the petitioner and pass a say within a period of three months henceforth. If demanded, personal hearing may be provided to the final direction, the had already submitted its objections within the prescribed Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that on account of this nsidered by the High Court of Delhi Alcatel Lucent India Limited vs. National E Assessment , and also the judgment passed by Kapurchand Shrimal vs. Commissioner of Income , wherein it was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to correct the However, while this Court does not in any manner hold that the to correct errors in proceedings, objections if any placed on record ought to be considered before In view of the fact that the final order does not take into consideration ves unable to dated 29.09.2023 with further direction to the DRP to consider the been raised by the petitioner and pass a say within a period of three months henceforth. If demanded, personal hearing may be provided to the MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27901-2023 7. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of July 30, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2023 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. All pending applications also stand disposed of (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "