No order was passed against the rectification application filed for 6 years, Bombay HC directs disciplinary action against the AO:
Pankaj Kailash Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, 17(1) Mumbai (WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7783 OF 2024)
Facts:
- The return of income of petitioner was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and an Intimation dated 29th March 2018 (the “said Intimation”) under section 143(1) of the Act was issued to petitioner. In the said Intimation, petitioner was denied the deduction under Section 80IC of the Act.
- The Chartered Accountant of petitioner realized that Form 10CCB, due to inadvertence, had not been uploaded online, which possibly could be the reason for denial of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.
- The petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. However it was not disposed off for more than 6 years.
- Petitioner has taken the plea that this amounts to unreasonable and unlawful refusal by the IT department to exercise statutory powers vested in it and the violation of its statutory duty to decide applications for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154.
Hon Bombay HC held as below:
- We have to note our disappointment with the conduct of respondent no.1 (Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) in not even replying to petitioner. The counsel relies on the affidavit in reply filed through on Shyam Lal Meena, ACIT, affirmed on 8 th April 2024 to submit that rectification order under Section 154 of the Act was not passed as there was no mistake apparent from record for which rectification sought to be done was to be passed.
- Respondent no.1 was duty bound to pass orders on the application which has been pending for almost 6 years, instead of making such baseless statements in the affidavit in reply.
- Perhaps, respondent no.1 thinks that he or she is not accountable to any citizen of this country.
- A Copy of this order shall be placed before the PCCIT to take disciplinary action against respondent no.1 for dereliction of duty.
The copy of the order is as under:
