Bhikhabhai Maneklal Patel Vs PCIT (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court heard a writ petition involving the rejection of a revision application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought remand of the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 for fresh consideration on merits after an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner relied upon the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer had recorded that the assessee had a remedial action available under Section 264 of the Act. Acting on that observation, the petitioner filed a revision application dated 11.05.2022 raising various contentions and requested a personal hearing. A notice dated 01.03.2024 was thereafter issued stating that personal hearing was not compulsory and that written submissions would constitute sufficient compliance. The petitioner filed a reply on 08.03.2024 and again requested permission to appear personally. However, by order dated 22.03.2024, the revision application was rejected on the ground that merely because the Assessing Officer had mentioned the availability of a remedy under Section 264, such application could not be accepted.
The petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sahil Machines India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India and the Calcutta High Court in Vikas Nagelia v. CIT. During the hearing, the High Court queried whether the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of personal hearing before rejection of the revision application. The Revenue was unable to dispute that no such opportunity had been given. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer had specifically recorded in the assessment order that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 264, following which the petitioner filed the revision application. The Court further observed that although the petitioner had raised various contentions in the reply, those contentions had been dealt with only cursorily by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The revision application was ultimately rejected merely by observing that the Assessing Officer’s reference to Section 264 did not make the application acceptable.
