Writ petition challenging Income Tax notices for reopening assessments and scrutiny assessments. The court held that Section 12A registration does not bar assessment under Sections 143 and 148, dismissing the petition.
Petition dismissed with no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RNG 1 wp1361.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1361 OF 2014
Chankya Mandal Pune .. Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors
.. Respondents
Mr. D.J.Dalal i/b Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Petitioner Mr.Vimal Gupta Sr.Advocate i/b Ms.Padma Divakar for Respondents
CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA AND G.S.KULKARNI,JJ DATE : 10 JUNE 2014
PC.
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to three communications dated 13.1.2014 seeks information for scrutiny Assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and a notice dated 28.11.2013 under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) for Assessment year 2011-12.
RNG 2 wp1361.14
Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner was issued a notice under section 143 (2) of the Act dated 28.11.2013 in respect of Assessment year 2011-12 and called upon to attend the hearing before the Assessing Officer on 6.12.2013. Thereafter, on 13.1.2014 the petitioners received three communications all dated 13.1.2014 for Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 informing the Petitioner that the scrutiny assessment for three Assessment years are to be carried out and called upon the petitioners to furnish certain information.
RNG 3 wp1361.14
City Gymkhana (supra) is concerned, the same also dealt with the issue that where the assessee has a registration under section 12A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot re-examine the objects of the trust. This was by merely upholding the application of Hiralal Bhagwati (supra) to its facts.
Accordingly, Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.)
RNG 4 wp1361.14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue notices for scrutiny assessment under Sections 143 and 148 despite the trust's registration under Section 12A.
Whether the statutory proceedings under Sections 11, 12, and 13 override restrictions implied by a Section 12A registration certificate.
Whether the challenge to the Income Tax notices has merit based on prior High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income TaxReferred¶15
Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 246 ITR 188 (Guj)
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Surat City GymkhanaDistinguished¶17
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Surat City Gymkhana (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 169
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Chankya Mandal Pune
Union of India
M.S.Sanklecha
G.S.Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
