Case Law Details
Samson Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has made a significant ruling in the case of Samson Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT. The court has quashed an order issued under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s objections. This judgment holds implications for the handling of tax-related matters and the importance of due process.
1. Background: The petitioner, Samson Healthcare Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 25.07.2023 issued by respondent no.1 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. This order involved the transfer of the petitioner’s cases from respondent no.2 to respondent no.4.
2. Notice and Objections: The record indicates that the petitioner received a notice on 18.01.2023, and in response, they filed their objections/reply on 23.01.2023.
3. Objections Not Considered: It came to light that when the impugned order was passed on 25.07.2023, the objections and replies submitted by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 were not taken into account.
4. Court’s Decision: In light of the oversight in not considering the petitioner’s objections, the court decided to set aside the order dated 25.07.2023. The court granted liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to issue a fresh order, ensuring that due process is followed.
5. Fresh Order with Personal Hearing: The court instructed the AO to provide a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner before issuing a fresh order. The AO is required to issue a notice specifying the date and time of the hearing.
6. Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of Samson Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT emphasizes the fundamental importance of due process in tax matters. The court’s decision to quash the Section 127 order due to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s objections highlights the need for meticulous attention to procedural fairness.
This judgment serves as a reminder to tax authorities and officers to adhere to established procedures and consider all relevant submissions from taxpayers before making significant decisions. It underscores the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done in matters of taxation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11515/2023 & CM No.44815/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1 Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. Given the direction that we propose to issue, Mr Rai says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court.
3.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. Via this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”].
5. Via the impugned order, the petitioner’s cases have been transferred from respondent no.2, i.e., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-22(2) to respondent no.4, i.e., Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad.
6. The record shows that the petitioner was issued a notice before the impugned order had been passed. This notice was issued on 18.01.2023.
6.1. The record also shows that the petitioner has filed its objections/reply to the said notice on 23.01.2023.
7. It appears that while passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, the objections/reply filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 were not taken into account.
8. Therefore, according to us, the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, with liberty to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh order, albeit, as per law.
9. The AO, before passing a fresh order, will accord a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. For this purpose, the AO will issue a notice indicating the date and time of the hearing to the petitioner.
10. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
11. The pending interlocutory application, i.e., CM No.44815/2023, is, accordingly closed.
12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
