COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 versus NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 814 OF 2019 IN
[2019] 13 S.C.R. 1106, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1
v.
NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.
Miscellaneous Application No. 814 of 2019
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2019)
OCTOBER 25, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Notice of SLP – Service of –
Applicant-company sought to re-call Judgment passed by the
Supreme Court on the ground that the applicant-company was not
served with the notice of the SLP – Acknowledgment receipt in the
record showed one ‘SN’, chartered accountant of the applicant-
company had received dasti notice on 13.12.2018 – ‘SN’ submitted
that he bonafide believed that the documents were “some income
tax return documents from the Income Tax Department” and further
submitted that he was suffering from an advanced stage of cataract
and had undergone a surgery in both eyes on 04.01.2019 and
23.01.2019 – Applicant-company contended that ‘SN’ was not the
‘principal officer’ of the applicant and hence service could not
have been effected upon him – Held: ‘SN’ admittedly was the power
of Attorney holder of the applicant for the A.Y. 2009-10 and was
the agent of the assessee-company and hence notice could be served
on him as the agent of the assessee-company in the present case –
‘SN’ did not disclose as to when the envelope containing dasti notice
was opened – Further, submission of ‘SN’ that dasti notice from the
Supreme Court was considered by him as to be ‘some income tax
return
documents’ lacked credibility – Dasti notice was served on
him on 13.12.2018, which was much prior to his surgery – He had
sufficient time to inform the applicant of the proceedings – Also,
‘SN’ had appeared before the Income Tax Authorities to represent
the applicant on various dates prior to his surgery – Therefore, no
credible or cogent grounds for re-call of judgment made out –
Applicant was duly served through authorised representative.
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1106
1106
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
Dismissing the Miscellaneous application, the Court
HELD: 1. ‘SN’, a Chartered Accountant admittedly being
the Power of Attorney holder of the Applicant for the A.Y. 2009 –
10 was the agent of the Assesse – Company, and hence Notice
could be served on him as the agent of the Assessee – Company
in this case. [Para 12][1111-F]
2. The ground taken by ‘SN’ that even though Notice was
served on 13.12.2018, he assumed that they were “some Income
Tax Return Documents” lacks credibility. It is difficult to accept
that the envelope containing the dasti Notice from this Court was
considered to be “some Income Tax Return documents”. The
deponent does not at all disclose as to when the envelope
containing the dasti Notice was ever opened. Furthermore, the
ground urged that the Chartered Accountant was suffering from
an advanced stage of cataract, and hence was constrained from
informing his clients is again not worthy of credence. The dasti
Notice was admittedly served on him on 13.12.2018 at his office,
which was much prior to his surgery which he states took place
on 04.01.2019. ‘SN’ had sufficient time to inform the Applicant –
Company of the proceedings, prior to his surgery. Furthermore,
‘SN’ appeared before the Income Tax Authorities to represent
the Applicant – Company and its sister concerns on various dates
prior to his surgery i.e. on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.12.2018
and 29.12.2018. [Para 13][1111-G; 1112-A-C]
3. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts
and
circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the Applicant –
Company was duly served through their authorized
representative, and were provided sufficient opportunities to
appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The Applicant
– Company chose to let the matter proceed ex-parte. The grounds
for Re-call of the Judgment are devoid of any merit whatsoever.
[Para 14][1112-D]
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata (2005) 12 SCC 77
: [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 12
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1
v. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 814 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2019.
From the Judgement and Order dated 26.02.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in ITA No. 244 of 2018.
ANS Nadkarni, ASG, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjana Roy
Gawai, Ms. Vasudha  Sen, Ujjwal  Jain, Ms. Divya  Roy, Ms. Praveena
Gautam, D. L. Chidanand, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Application has been filed for Re-call of the
Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 2463 of
2019, on the ground that theApplicant – Company was not served with
the Notice of the SLP at the registered office of the Company, nor was
a copy of the SLP served on the Applicant – Company. Consequentially,
since the Judgment was passed ex-parte, the Applicants prayed for Re-
call of the Judgment and a de novo hearing.
2. The Applicants submit that the Court Notices were sent to the
earlier registered office address of the Applicant – Company i.e. at 310,
3rd Floor, B-Block, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
However, on 19.05.2014, the Applicant – Company changed its registered
office to 211, Somdutt Chambers II, 9, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi –
110066.
Thereafter, on 23.01.2019, the registered office was again changed
to 1205, Cabine No. 1, 89 Hemkunt Chambers, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
3. The
Applicants submit that they learnt of the Judgment dated
05.03.2019 passed by this Court from a news clipping published in the
Economic Times on 07.03.2019. Subsequently, the Application for re-
call was filed on 12.03.2019.
4. The Applicant – Company submits that on an inspection of the
court record, they learnt that the Affidavit of dasti service filed by the
Revenue – Department on 19.12.2018, showed an acknowledgment
receipt by Mr. Sanjeeva Narayan, the Chartered Accountant of the
Applicant – Companyon 13.12.2018.
5. The Applicant – Company placed on record the Affidavit of
Mr. Sanjeev Narayan – Chartered Accountant, wherein he has stated
that he was the authorized representative of the Respondent – Company
before the Income Tax Authorities but was not engaged before the High
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
Court, or the Supreme Court. The Chartered Accountant further submits
that he had received service on 13.12.2018 from one of the Inspectors
of the Income Tax Department,but he bona fide believed that the
documents were “some Income Tax Return documents from Income
Tax Department.”
The Chartered Accountant further submits that he was suffering
from an advanced stage of cataract, and had undergone a surgery in
both the eyes on 04.01.2019 and 23.01.2019 respectively.
6. The Applicant – Company during oral arguments submitted
that Mr. Sanjeev Narayan – Chartered Accountant was representing
the Applicant – Company in all its cases, as also the sister concerns
including M/s. Tata Steel BSL Ltd. (earlier known as Bhushan Steel
Ltd.) before the Income Tax Authorities, and continues to represent the
Applicant – Company even as on date.
7. This Court vide Order dated 19.08.2019, called for the original
record from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.
In the meanwhile, the Department was granted time to file their
objections.
8. The Department in the Counter Affidavit submitted that the
dasti Notice was duly served on Mr. Sanjeev Narayan at his office
address, in his capacity as the authorized representative of the Applicant
– Company, who was holding a Power of Attorney of the Assessee –
Company for the A.Y. 2009 – 10. The Power of Attorney appoints all
four partners of the firm i.e. Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani
Kumar, Chartered
Accountant, Mr. Sanjeev Narayan, Chartered
Accountant and Mr. Surender Kumar, FCA as their Counsel, and
authorizes them to represent the Applicant – Company at all stages of
the proceedings. The Power of Attorney executed by the Applicant –
Company in favour of Mr. Sanjeev Narayan was placed on record.
9. It was further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that even
though Mr. Sanjeev Narayan has stated that he underwent the cataract
surgery on 04.01.2019 and 23.01.2019, this was much after the Notice
had been served on 13.12.2018. Hence, there was ample time for him to
inform his clients of the pendency of the proceedings.
10. It was further submitted that Mr. Sanjeev Narayan had
appeared before the Tax Authorities after the date of service on
13.12.2018, and prior to his surgery, to represent the Applicant – Company
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1
v. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
and its sister concerns on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018, 28.12.2018 and
29.12.2018.
In these circumstances it was pointed out that there was no merit
in the contention raised by the Applicant – Company, and hence no ground
was made out to Re-call the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2019
passed by this Court.
11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
This Court in C.A. No. 2463 of 2019, issued Notice to the Assessee
- Applicant vide Order dated 12.11.2018. Since dasti service was
effected on 13.12.2018 on the Applicant – Company, the matter was
listed on 02.01.2019. However, none appeared on behalf of the Applicant
– Company. The Court further adjourned the matter by two weeks, and
posted the case on 18.01.2019, when it was ordered that in case the
Applicant – Company chooses not to enter appearance, the matter would
be proceeded ex-parte.The matter was, thereafter, listed on 23.01.2019,
when the following Order was passed:
“Notice was issued in the matter on 12.11.2018, Office report
dated 22.12.2018 indicated that notice was served upon the
sole Respondent but none had entered appearance. By order
dated 02.01.2019, last opportunity was given to the
Respondent and it was indicated that if the Respondent chose
not to enter appearance, the matter would be disposed of ex-
parte. Even then none has entered appearance. Having gone
through the matter, we give one more opportunity to the
Respondent to enter appearance and make submissions with
respect to the merits of the matter. If the Respondent still
chooses not to appear, the matter shall definitely be decided
ex-parte.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Applicant – Company remained unrepresented despite service
on its authorised representative, on 31.01.2019, and on 05.02.2019, when
the matter was taken up for final hearing, and judgment was reserved.
12. During oral hearing on the Re-call Application, a submission
was made by the Counsel for the Applicant – Company that Mr. Sanjeev
Narayan was not the “principal officer” of the Applicant – Company,
and henceservice could not have been effected upon him.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
Section 2(35) defines “principal officer” as follows :
“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(35) “principal officer”, used with reference to a local
authority or a company or any other public body or any
association of persons or anybody of individuals, means—
 (a) the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the authority,
company, association or body, or
(b) any person connected with the management or
administration of the local authority, company, association
or body upon whom the Assessing Officer has served a notice
of his intention of treating him as the principal officer
thereof;”
(emphasis supplied)
The term ‘agent’would certainly include a power of attorney holder.
In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nehata1 this Court held that:
“A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by
Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power
of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the
principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to
manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring
necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power
of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent.”
(emphasis supplied)
Mr. Sanjeev Narayan admittedly being the Power of Attorney
holder of the Applicant – M/s. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y.
2009 – 10 was the agent of the Assesse – Company,and hence Notice
could be served on him as the agent of the Assessee – Company in this
case.
13. The ground taken by Mr. Sanjeev Narayan that even though
Notice was served on 13.12.2018, he assumed that they were “some
Income Tax Return Documents” lacks credibility. It is difficult to accept
that the envelope containing the dastiNotice from this Court was
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1
v. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
12005 (12) SCC 77.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
considered to be “some Income Tax Return documents”. The deponent
does not at all disclose as to when the envelope containing the dasti
Notice was ever opened.
Furthermore, the ground urged that the Chartered Accountant
was suffering from an advanced stage of cataract, and hence was
constrained from informing his clients is again not worthy of credence.
The dastiNotice was admittedly served on him on 13.12.2018 at his
office,which was much prior to his surgery which he states took place
on 04.01.2019. Mr. Narayan had sufficient time to inform the Applicant
– Company of the proceedings,prior to his surgery.
Furthermore, Mr. Narayan appeared before the Income Tax
Authorities to represent the Applicant – Company and its sister concerns
on various dates prior to his surgery i.e. on 14.12.2018, 21.12.2018,
28.12.2018 and 29.12.2018.
14. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts and circumstances,
this Court is satisfied that the Applicant – Company was duly served
through their authorized representative, and were provided sufficient
opportunities to appear before this Court, and contest the matter. The
Applicant – Company chose to let the matter proceed ex-parte. The
grounds for Re-call of the Judgment are devoid of any merit whatsoever.
15. The Applicant – Company having failed to make out any
credible or cogent ground for Re-call of the judgment dated 05.03.2019,
the Application for Re-call is dismissed with no order
as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
M.A. dismissed.
.