PICO CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 8(2)(1)

Judgment text excerpt

2025:BHC-OS:217-DB Sayyed 7-WP(L).15940.2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.15940 OF 2024 Pico Capital Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 8(2)(1) & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi for Petitioner. Mr. Dhanajay B. Deshmukh for Respondents. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 7 January 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per M. S. Sonak J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the assessment order dated 26 March 2024 and notice dated 31 March 2023 disposing of objections under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. At the outset, we clarify that we are not considering the challenge to the notice dated 31 March 2023, but we propose to consider the challenge to the assessment order dated 26 March 2024 on the ground that it was made in breach of the principles of natural justice. 5. The Petitioner, in reply to the show cause notice, had explicitly sought for a personal hearing. There is no dispute on this aspect. Page 1 of 4 Sayyed 7-WP(L).15940.2024.docx 6. However, the impugned order in paragraph 11 records the following:- “Now, the assessee has asked for video conferencing, which is not required because 'time and again' the objections were removed properly and the assessee was also show-caused for which it was duly stated that the carry forward losses of amalgamating companies are not set off during the year and i.e. why there is no escapement of income. It is again brou