Bombay High CourtWP/11044/2024rule made absolute

Dilipkumar Mulchand Puruswani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3), Pune

2025-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain , Hon'Ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak3 pages

Sayyed 13-WP.11043.2024 & 14-WP.11044.2024.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11043 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO.11043 OF 2024 Nirmalkumar Mulchand Puruswani Nirmalkumar Mulchand Puruswani

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune & Ors.

...Respondents

AND AND WRIT PETITION NO.11044 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO.11044 OF 2024 Dilipkumar Mulchand Puruswani Dilipkumar Mulchand Puruswani

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3), Pune & Ors.

...Respondents

_____________________________________________________ Mr. Sanket S. Bora (through VC) a/w Mr. Ameya R. Das i/b. SPCM Legal Mr. Sanket S. Bora (through VC) a/w Mr. Ameya R. Das i/b. SPCM Legal for Petitioner in both the petitions.

for Petitioner in both the petitions.

Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani for Respondents in WP/11043/2023. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani for Respondents in WP/11043/2023. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents in WP/11044/2023. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents in WP/11044/2023. _____________________________________________________ CORAM :

M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 13 January 2025 PC.:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the parties states that the issues raised The learned counsel for the parties states that the issues raised in both petitions are similar, and therefore, they may be considered in both petitions are similar, and therefore, they may be considered together.

together.

In both these petitions, the ITAT, vide its order dated 31 July In both these petitions, the ITAT, vide its order dated 31 July 2006, has set aside the impugned assessment orders and restored the 2006, has set aside the impugned assessment orders and restored the matter to the AO for a matter to the AO for a de-novo de-novo decision as per the observations made in decision as per the observations made in the ITAT orders. The AO was also directed to provide an adequate the ITAT orders. The AO was also directed to provide an adequate hearing opportunity to the assesses.

hearing opportunity to the assesses.

Sayyed 13-WP.11043.2024 & 14-WP.11044.2024.docx 4.

The record shows, and it is not even disputed, that the ITAT The record shows, and it is not even disputed, that the ITAT order dated 31 July 2006 was communicated to the department order dated 31 July 2006 was communicated to the department concerned. The complaint in these petitions is that though almost 16 concerned. The complaint in these petitions is that though almost 16 years have elapsed, the concerned AO has not made any assessment years have elapsed, the concerned AO has not made any assessment orders according to the remand by the ITAT. The learned counsel for the orders according to the remand by the ITAT. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners have been deprived of their Petitioner submits that the Petitioners have been deprived of their refund for almost 17 years, and such retentions of the amount by the refund for almost 17 years, and such retentions of the amount by the department is arbitrary and violates constitutional provisions. department is arbitrary and violates constitutional provisions. 5.

The Respondents have filed affidavits before us. Apart from The Respondents have filed affidavits before us. Apart from trying to blame the Petitioner for not pursuing the matter diligently, trying to blame the Petitioner for not pursuing the matter diligently, there is an acknowledgement that case papers are not traceable since there is an acknowledgement that case papers are not traceable since more than 10 years have elapsed.

more than 10 years have elapsed.

In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed by Mary Robin In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed by Mary Robin Abraham, in Writ Petition No.11043 of 2024, it is stated as follows: - Abraham, in Writ Petition No.11043 of 2024, it is stated as follows: - "9.

"9.

The department has undergone restructuring in 2001 as well as The department has undergone restructuring in 2001 as well as 2014 wherein there was major upheaval of jurisdiction of Assessing 2014 wherein there was major upheaval of jurisdiction of Assessing Officers as well as CIT charges. The present jurisdiction of the Officers as well as CIT charges. The present jurisdiction of the Respondent 1 is assigned only from November, 2014. Prior to this Respondent 1 is assigned only from November, 2014. Prior to this period, the charge of Respondent 1 had jurisdiction over salary period, the charge of Respondent 1 had jurisdiction over salary assesses. The Petitioner assessee had never raised this issue before assesses.

The Petitioner assessee had never raised this issue before any forum or before the Department till the year 2022 as Petitioner any forum or before the Department till the year 2022 as Petitioner has not produced any document to prove any correspondence made has not produced any document to prove any correspondence made on the issue prior to the year 2022. It is beyond comprehension as on the issue prior to the year 2022. It is beyond comprehension as to why an assessee who has been regularly filing his return of to why an assessee who has been regularly filing his return of income with tax payment and claiming of refund, wherever due, income with tax payment and claiming of refund, wherever due, forgot his claim of refund for 16 long years. forgot his claim of refund for 16 long years. 10.

10. It is in public domain that the processing of return and keeping of It is in public domain that the processing of return and keeping of record in the Respondent Income Tax department has undergone record in the Respondent Income Tax department has undergone several changes. It has moved from manual record to computer several changes. It has moved from manual record to computer record. A Software called ITD was initially introduced which was record. A Software called ITD was initially introduced which was subsequently migrated when ITBA was adopted. Further, the PAN subsequently migrated when ITBA was adopted. Further, the PAN of assessee has been with different Jurisdictional AOs from 2002 to of assessee has been with different Jurisdictional AOs from 2002 to 2022, the details of which are annexed herewith and marked as 2022, the details of which are annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT 'A'."

EXHIBIT 'A'."

Sayyed 13-WP.11043.2024 & 14-WP.11044.2024.docx 7.

In our opinion, the above averments are quite vague. No In our opinion, the above averments are quite vague. No details are provided about the officials responsible for the maintenance details are provided about the officials responsible for the maintenance of records and if any action has taken place against such officials for of records and if any action has taken place against such officials for failure to retain such records. The affidavit also does not explain why no failure to retain such records.

The affidavit also does not explain why no orders for giving effect to the ITAT's remand orders were made within orders for giving effect to the ITAT's remand orders were made within the prescribed period of limitation and what action is taken against the the prescribed period of limitation and what action is taken against the officials responsible for not making such orders. From the records, we officials responsible for not making such orders. From the records, we find that these were such search cases. Accordingly, the departmental find that these were such search cases. Accordingly, the departmental officials were expected to be diligent, and the matter was required to be officials were expected to be diligent, and the matter was required to be diligently pursued. The ITAT remand order needed to be complied with diligently pursued.

The ITAT remand order needed to be complied with within a reasonable period and, in any event, within the limitation within a reasonable period and, in any event, within the limitation period prescribed by the law. If this is not done, then the officials period prescribed by the law. If this is not done, then the officials responsible for not doing this will have to be held accountable. Based responsible for not doing this will have to be held accountable. Based on some vague statements about restructuring or major upheaval, no on some vague statements about restructuring or major upheaval, no attempt can be made to avoid fixing responsibility. attempt can be made to avoid fixing responsibility. 8.

Accordingly, we direct the Principal Commissioner of Income Accordingly, we direct the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, to investigate these matters and file affidavits explaining the Tax, Pune, to investigate these matters and file affidavits explaining the status of the investigation. The affidavits must be filed and served by 6 status of the investigation. The affidavits must be filed and served by 6 February 2025.

February 2025.

The learned counsel for the Respondents agrees to The learned counsel for the Respondents agrees to communicate and authenticate the copy of this order to the Principal communicate and authenticate the copy of this order to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune.

10.

List the petitions on 10 February 2025 List the petitions on 10 February 2025.

(Jitendra S. Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/01/2025 14:09:07