2025 (9) TMI 41

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "A. Be pleased to admit and allow this petition. B. Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Annexure "K". C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n order under section 250 of the Act dated 16.02.2023 confirming the penalty under section 271(1((c) of the Act on incorrect facts instead of adjudication in appeal under section 246A against the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenged the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and not the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the petitioner preferred a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. 12. Respondent no.1 passed the order under section 154 of the Act dated 16.10.2023 to amend the order dated 16.02.2023. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 passed an order under secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order dated 21.11.2024 is also not tenable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the order which is sought to be rectified already stands rectified by the appellate authority. It was also submitted that the penalty order dated 26.07.2024 was passed prior to passing of the order and was under challenge and therefore, there was no question of restoring such penalty order by impugned rectification order. 20. It was further submitted that respondent no.1 National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had passed an order dated 16.02.2023 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty for cash deposit of Rs. 56,64,000/-, however by rectification order dated 16.10.2023, the appellate authority of NFAC has rectified the mistake of wrongly ....