2024 (3) TMI 957 - HC - Income Tax

Application u/s 119(2)(b) for condoning delay, if any, in filing Form 10-ID to avail the beneficial rate of tax of 15% u/s 115BAB - Validity of order of CBDT rejecting the application u/s 119(2)(b) - FDI investment approval from China - as submitted Petitioner had not entered into any transaction for FY 2019-20 as need to take approvals and the COVID-19 pandemic which lasted in China for a longer period - For AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, Petitioner had not exercised the option to be governed by Section 115BAB of the Act, which Petitioner thought of exercising for AY 2022-23. - As argued order has not been passed or signed by the Member who gave a personal hearing and secondly, in the order reliance has been placed on the report of the Field Authorities, which Petitioner on instructions, states, has not been provided - principles of natural justice denied - HELD THAT - As Petitioner stated that such a report was received by CBDT and considered itself came to light only when Petitioner received the impugned order. He also states that Petitioner s officers were called by the Field Authorities . Their explanations were sought after which nothing was received by the Assessee from the Field Authorities. In our view, principles of natural justice would require that Respondent No. 1 should have made a copy of the report received by them from the Field Authorities to Petitioner and given an opportunity to Petitioner to explain or show cause. We understand that even during the personal hearing, it was not informed to Petitioner that there was such a report. Moreover, the order says, This issues with the approval of Member (IT R), Central Board of Direct Taxes and is signed by one Virender Singh, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA Cell), CBDT, New Delhi. If a personal hearing has been granted by the Member (IT R), the order should have been passed by him. Mr. Sharma states there could be file notings. If that is so, that has not been made available to Petitioner. In the circumstances, on these two grounds alone, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 5th December 2023 and remand the matter to CBDT. The Member/Members shall within three weeks from the date this order is uploaded make available to Petitioner all Field Reports/documents/instructions received by the CBDT from the Field Authorities and within two weeks of receiving the same, Petitioner shall file, if advised, further submissions in support of their application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, an order shall be written, passed and that order shall be authored and signed by the Member of CBDT, who has given a personal hearing and when we say this, it is not the Member holding the same designation.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition challenges an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the condonation of delay in filing Form 10-ID to avail the beneficial tax rate under Section 115BAB.

Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner, a joint venture between Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. and GOTION CHINA, faced delays due to changes in the Foreign Direct Investment policy and the COVID-19 pandemic, but eventually received necessary approvals and commenced commercial production.

2. The petitioner filed its return of income for relevant assessment years and sought to be governed by Section 115BAB for the upcoming year, hence applied for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act.

3. Despite a personal hearing, the impugned order was not signed by the Member who conducted the hearing, and it relied on a report from Field Authorities not provided to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.

4. The High Court quashed the order, directing the CBDT to provide all relevant reports to the petitioner, ensure the order is authored and signed by the Member who conducted the personal hearing, and allow further submissions before passing a reasoned order.

5. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, granting the petitioner the opportunity to present their case fully before any final decision is made, with all rights and contentions preserved.

Judgment by: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.