SPL Gold India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 143(3)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• S. 143(3) : Assessment-Natural justice-Covid-19-Lockdown- Returned income was loss of Rs.10,57,049/- and income assessed was Rs.114,57,33,424-Only three working days’ notice was given to file various details-Order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice-Order was set aside. [S. 144, Art. 226] The assessee is in the business of trading of Precious Metals-Gold and Silver Bullion. During the lockdown period the assesee was served with notice to file the details with in three working days. The returned income was loss of Rs.10,57,049. The Assessing Officer passed the order by estimating the income at 8% of sales turnover and assessed the income at Rs.114,57,33,424. The assessee filed writ before the High Court. Allowing the petition the Court held that order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice.…
• 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

1 921-WP 1368-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2021 SPL Gold India Private Limited ] … Petitioner Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, ] Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai & Anr. ] … Respondents Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Rahul K. Hakani for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey , Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, present.

P. C. :- 1. Petitioner is impugning the Assessment Order dated 25/05/2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 19 61 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') computing Petitioner's total i ncome at Rs.114,57,33,424/- as against the returns of income filed by Petit ioner declaring total income at Rs.Nil. This was for AY 2018-19. 2. According to Petitioner a notice under Section 142(1) dated 20/05/2021 was received on 21/05/2021 requiring Petitioner to sub mit various details by 25/05/2021. 22/05/2021 was 4 th Saturday and URS 1 of 4 UMESH RAMESH SHINDE by UMESH RAMESH SHINDE Date: 2021.10.29 18:18:07 +0530

2 921-WP 1368-21.odt 23/05/2021 was a Sunday . Petitioner is based in Mumbai and duri ng those days, there was a lockdown in Mumbai due to Covid-19 p andemic. Dr. Shivaram stated that notwithstanding this situation and being aw are of the problem faced by Petitioner because the Assessing Officer also i s based in Mumbai, time only up to 25/05/2021 was granted and it was an unreasonably short time. Dr. Shivaram submitted that the documents sought included details with respect to advances from customers above Rs.9 Lakhs including letter confirmation, copy of invoices, bank statement highlighting receipt of advances etc., bank books and bank account statements, item-wise stock register, month-wise stock movement summary , details of all sales and purchases of parties above Rs.5 Lakh s along with their ledgers, corresponding purchase invoices, delivery challan copy / import documents, stock register in Excel format and reconciliation with monthly purchases and sales made, details of bad debts etc. Dr. Shivaram stated that Petitioner would have required minimum one month to collect and collate the details sought and th e compilation would be in excess of 1000 pages. Respondents, however, proceeded to pass the Assessment Order on 25/05/2021 making an addition of Rs.114.57 Crores to Petitioner's total income. 3. Respondents have filed an Affidavit-in-Reply through one Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey affirmed on 22/07/2021. Mr. Suresh Kumar, on URS 2 of 4

3 921-WP 1368-21.odt instructions of Mr.Pandey who is also present in Court, informed the Court that due to inadvertence, certain errors have crept in the Affidav it-inReply and requested leave of the Court to withdraw the Affidavi t-in-Reply with liberty file a fresh Affidavit of an appropriate Of ficer. Since at the outset itself, Mr. Suresh Kumar brought to the notice of the Cour t the errors, we would grant leave to Mr. Suresh Kumar to withdraw th e said Affidavit. As regards liberty prayed for to file a fresh A ffidavit, we are not inclined to grant that liberty . This is because in our view, it w ould make no difference to the allegations contained in the Petition. 4. With the Assistance of Dr. Shivaram and Mr. Suresh Kumar, we have gone through the Petition and the documents annexed thereto. We have also considered the Assessment Order. It is true that between 20/05/2021 and 25/05/2021 there was a lockdown in Mumbai and 22/05/2021 and 23/05/2021 were holidays. Therefore, even wi th a superhuman effort, Petitioner would not have been able to file the huge number of documents called for in the short period granted and therefore, passing of the Assessment Order without granting sufficient time to Petitioner is certainly violative of the principles of natural just ice. We are inclined to quash the Assessment Order dated 25/05/2021 which we hereby do. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration. URS 3 of 4

4 921-WP 1368-21.odt 5. Dr. Shivaram states that response to the notice issued on 20/05/2021 will be filed within 2 weeks from today . Statement accepted. 6. The Assessing Officer may consider the submissions made by Petitioner along with the documents and pass such order as he deems f it in accordance with law after giving a personal hearing to the Petiti oner in accordance with the Rules. 7. We also clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. 8. The time between 25/05/2021 till today is excluded for th e purpose of calculating time limit for passing re-Assessment Order. 9. Petition disposed with no order as to costs. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) URS 4 of 4

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

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with SPL Gold India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT concerns s. 143(3) : assessment-natural justice-covid-19-lockdown- returned income was loss of rs.10,57,049/- and income assessed was rs.114,57,33,424-only three working days’ notice was given to file various details-order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice-order was set aside. [s. 144, art. 226] the assessee is in the business of trading of precious metals-gold and silver bullion. during the lockdown period the assesee was served with notice to file the details with in three working days. the returned income was loss of rs.10,57,049. the assessing officer passed the order by estimating the income at 8% of sales turnover and assessed the income at rs.114,57,33,424. the assessee filed writ before the high court. allowing the petition the court held that order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice.… 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 NO.1368 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: S. 143(3) : Assessment-Natural justice-Covid-19-Lockdown- Returned income was loss of Rs.10,57,049/- and income assessed was Rs.114,57,33,424-Only three working days’ notice was given to file various details-Order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice-Order was set aside. [S. 144, Art. 226] The assessee is in the business of trading of Precious Metals-Gold and Silver Bullion. During the lockdown period the assesee was served with notice to file the details with in three working days. The returned income was loss of Rs.10,57,049. The Assessing Officer passed the order by estimating the income at 8% of sales turnover and assessed the income at Rs.114,57,33,424. The assessee filed writ before the High Court. Allowing the petition the Court held that order passed without giving sufficient time is violative of the principle of natural justice.… Its practical value lies in the way the Bombay High Court connected the governing provisions—143(3)—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 143(3) and the decision date 2021-10-28; 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 SPL Gold India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, the proceeding is WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2021, and the decision is dated 2021-10-28. 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 143(3). 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_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

• 143(3) — 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_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY