2023 (3) TMI 930 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner granted hearing opportunity for tax immunity request under Income Tax Act

The petitioner's application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initially rejected due to a filing delay. The petitioner, ... Immunity u/s 270AA - Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - claim rejected on the ground that the same was beyond the stipulated period available for filing the said application - application was filed after the delay of 48 days and the delay was on account of some technical glitches in the portal which prevented the said application from being uploaded within time - procedural delay - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Sub-section(4) of Section 270AA of the Act makes it amply clear that before an application is rejected, the applicant must be given an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was not afforded the said opportunity. This Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order as the same has been passed without following the procedure as set out in Section 270AA(4) of the Act. Impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned officer (Respondent no.2) to consider the petitioner’s application u/s 270AA of the Act afresh. Issues involved:The petitioner's application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected due to delay in filing.Summary:The petitioner, an individual, filed a return for the assessment year 2020-2021, which was picked up for scrutiny resulting in disallowance of certain expenditure by the Assessing Officer. A tax demand was raised, which the petitioner paid. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking immunity from penalty proceedings under Section 270AA(2), which was dismissed due to delay of 48 days in filing. The petitioner claimed the delay was due to technical glitches. The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be set aside as no opportunity of being heard was given as required by law.The Court noted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard before the application was rejected, as mandated by Section 270AA(4) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the concerned officer to reconsider the petitioner's application. The petitioner was directed to appear before the officer to avail the opportunity of being heard on a specified date. The concerned officer was instructed to pass a fresh order based on the petitioner's submissions and in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.