9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of returns under Amnesty Scheme and incidental orders. Analysis: The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the rejection of its returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme and certain incidental orders. The main relief sought was to quash the orders passed by the Income-tax Tribunal and restore the petitioner's appeal, while also requesting a stay on the prosecution launched against the petitioner. The petitioner initially applied under the Amnesty Scheme, paid the tax, and later expressed intent to file a return for a specific assessment year. However, there was a communication issue regarding the withdrawal of the appeal, leading to confusion. The Tribunal advanced the hearing date without informing the petitioner, ultimately passing an order dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. Despite subsequent communications from the petitioner, the Tribunal refused to recall its order, prompting the petitioner to file this petition challenging the Tribunal's decision. The High Court noted that the petitioner had indeed changed its mind regarding the withdrawal of the appeal, as evidenced by the letters sent to the Tribunal. It was observed that the Tribunal had advanced the hearing date without proper communication, and despite receiving the petitioner's subsequent letter, proceeded to pass the formal order dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have considered the petitioner's communication before passing the impugned order and should have been more receptive to the petitioner's request to recall the order. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in advancing the hearing date without informing the assessee and in refusing to reconsider its decision in light of subsequent communications. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed the Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file, hear the parties, and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and instructing the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process. The Court also directed that the prosecutions pending against the petitioner should not proceed until the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that the petitioner could pursue further remedies available under the Amnesty Scheme. The ruling was made without any order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of proper communication and procedural fairness in such matters.
|
