Milestone Brandcom Private Limited v. NFAC

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 144B

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Bombay High Court passes strictures against Assessing Officer for ‘remarkable ineptitude’ and ‘gross abuse of process’; imposes costs for not considering Assessee’s reply to Draft Assessment Order and cutting & pasting the Draft Assessment Order in the Final Assessment Order. The Writ Petition was filed by the Assessee against a Final Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre without considering the response of the Assessee to the Draft Assessment Order and without granting an opportunity of being heard despite request from the Assessee. The Court noted that the final order was nothing but cut and pasted from the Draft Assessment Order. The High Court remarked that the Court’s precious judicial time was wasted due to the ‘remarkable ineptitude’ of the Assessing Officer who passed the order. The Court passed strictures against the Assessing Officer for ‘total…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

1 917-WPL 28212-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28212 OF 2021 Milestone Brandcom Private Limited ] … Petitioner Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre, ] New Delhi & Anr. ] … Respondents Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w Ms. Ami Brahmbhatt i/b Ms. Neelam Jain fo r Petitioner. Mr. Sham V . Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents – Revenue.

CORAM :- K. R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR , JJ. DATE :- 14 DECEMBER , 20 21 P. C. :- 1. This is another matter where Court’s precious judicial time i s spent due to utter disregard for orders and remarkable ineptitude o f the Assessing Officer. 2. Petitioner was served with a draft Assessment Order dated 06/05/2021 with a notice by which Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft Assessment Order. In paragraph 4, it is stated, ‘ But the assessee company did not respond or remain silent on this issue ’. Petitioner responded to this by its letter dated 12/05/2021 and also sought personal hea ring. In the reply , Petitioner explained why it could not respond earlier and also showed cause as to why the order as per draft Assessment Order should URS 1 of 3 UMESH RAMESH SHINDE by UMESH RAMESH SHINDE Date: 2021.12.17 11:55:27 +0530

2 917-WPL 28212-21.odt not be passed. Notwithstanding this reply , Respondents have gone ahead and passed the impugned order dated 23/09/2021 almost 4.1/2 months later simply cutting and pasting the draft Assessment Order. Paragraph 4 of the Assessment Order also reads as, ‘ But the assessee company did not respond or remain silent on this issue ’. No personal hearing has been granted and the reply dated 12/05/2021 has also not been considered. 3. In our view, there has been total non-application of mind and we would add gross abuse of process by Respondents. Due to the actions / inaction of Respondents, parties are made to incur substantial legal costs and Court’s judicial time has also been wasted.

It is ano ther case in which, in our view, costs have to be imposed on the A ssessing Officer hoping that the concerned parties will also take action agains t the Assessing Officer for passing such orders without application of mind. 4. The Assessment Order dated 23/09/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer, who will not be the same officer who passed the ea rlier Assessment Order, shall consider the reply filed by Petitioner on 12/05/2021 and pass an Assessment Order as he deems fit in accordance with law, within 8 weeks from the time this order gets u ploaded but before passing the order shall give a personal hearing to Petitioner .

The notice of personal hearing shall be issued at least one week in advance. URS 2 of 3

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

3 917-WPL 28212-21.odt 5. Consequently , notices issued under Sections 156 and 270A are also quashed and set aside. 6. As regards the Assessing Officer who has passed the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as donation from his / her personal account to P . M. Cares Fund. The account details are as under : Name of the Account : PM CARES Account Number : 60355358964 IFSC : MAHB0001160 Branch : UPSC – New Delhi 7. The said Assessing Officer shall thereafter file an Affidavit of proof of payment within 2 weeks of this order getting uploaded and annex thereto a copy of bank’s statement proving that it has been paid from the Assessing Officer’s personal account, under advise to Petitioner’s Advocate. If Petitioner’s Advocate does not receive this Affidav it within 2 weeks of this order getting uploaded, liberty is granted to Petiti oner’s Advocate to mention this matter for compliance. 8. Petition disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) URS 3 of 3

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Milestone Brandcom Private Limited v. NFAC concerns bombay high court passes strictures against assessing officer for ‘remarkable ineptitude’ and ‘gross abuse of process’; imposes costs for not considering assessee’s reply to draft assessment order and cutting & pasting the draft assessment order in the final assessment order. the writ petition was filed by the assessee against a final assessment order passed by the national faceless assessment centre without considering the response of the assessee to the draft assessment order and without granting an opportunity of being heard despite request from the assessee. the court noted that the final order was nothing but cut and pasted from the draft assessment order. the high court remarked that the court’s precious judicial time was wasted due to the ‘remarkable ineptitude’ of the assessing officer who passed the order. the court passed strictures against the assessing officer for ‘total… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28212 OF 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Bombay High Court passes strictures against Assessing Officer for ‘remarkable ineptitude’ and ‘gross abuse of process’; imposes costs for not considering Assessee’s reply to Draft Assessment Order and cutting & pasting the Draft Assessment Order in the Final Assessment Order. The Writ Petition was filed by the Assessee against a Final Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre without considering the response of the Assessee to the Draft Assessment Order and without granting an opportunity of being heard despite request from the Assessee. The Court noted that the final order was nothing but cut and pasted from the Draft Assessment Order. The High Court remarked that the Court’s precious judicial time was wasted due to the ‘remarkable ineptitude’ of the Assessing Officer who passed the order. The Court passed strictures against the Assessing Officer for ‘total… Its practical value lies in the way the Bombay High Court connected the governing provisions—144B—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 144B and the decision date 2021-12-14; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Milestone Brandcom Private Limited v. NFAC, the proceeding is WRIT PETITION (L) NO.28212 OF 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-12-14. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as K. R. SHRIRAM & AMIT B. BORKAR , JJ.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 144B. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is Review / appeal / SLP status: check pending. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 144B — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — Court / Tribunal to be verified · Quashed / set aside
• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra — Bombay High Court · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary source search pending · Repository status: Published