Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Nitin Life Sciences Limited Vs PCIT & another (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : CWP No. 2639 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/01/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Nitin Life Sciences Limited Vs PCIT & another (Himachal Pradesh High Court)

In the case of Nitin Life Sciences Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) & Another, the Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of an unreasoned order and notice of reassessment issued by the tax authorities. The petitioner, Nitin Life Sciences Limited, challenged the order dated April 13, 2023, and the accompanying notice which concluded that an amount of ₹2,73,28,43,663 had escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The notice required the petitioner to undergo assessment or reassessment of the stated income within 30 days of receiving the notice.

The petitioner submitted a copy of the notice served upon them (Annexure P-4) along with their response and supporting documents (Annexure P-5). Additionally, an extra reply dated April 3, 2023 (Annexure P-6), was also presented by the petitioner. The core grievance of the petitioner was that despite providing detailed responses and documents, which demonstrated that the income/transactions in question were already accounted for in their financial records, the tax authorities did not consider these materials. The supplementary reply was also reportedly ignored.

The respondents, representing the tax authorities, contended that the petitioner’s reply had been considered, as mentioned in the impugned order. They further claimed that the supplementary reply dated April 3, 2023, was not received by the concerned authority. However, upon examining the impugned order (Annexure P-7), it was evident that there was no reference to the specific replies and documents submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, there was no consideration of the supplementary reply dated April 3, 2023.

The court observed that the respondents’ plea that the supplementary reply was not received was contradicted by their own document (Annexure R-1), which listed the receipt of the supplementary reply from the petitioner on April 3, 2023. This established that the concerned authority had indeed received the supplementary reply but failed to take it into account.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031