Partly allowed

M/S. Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-7, Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2014WP/3894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an Income Tax Assessment Order passed due to the Assessing Officer's failure to consider the assessee's objections to the reasons for reopening the assessment before passing the order, directing the officer to first adjudicate those objections.

What did the court decide?

Assessment Order dated 30th March 2013 set aside; Assessing Officer directed to consider objections first.

M/S. Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP-3894-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3894 OF 2013

¶4

M/s. Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune & Another .. Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadekar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 15 JULY, 2014.

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

By consent of the parties, Petition is being disposed of at the stage of Admission.

¶9

2 This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges:-

¶10

(a) the notice dated 28^th March 2012 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), seeking to re-open the Assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06; and

¶11

(b) the Assessment Order dated 30^th March 2013 passed on reassessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06.

¶12

3 The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that the Assessment Order dated 30^th March 2013 was passed without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections on grounds/ reasons for issuing the impugned

1 of 3

S.R.JOSHI

WP-3894-2013

notice dated 28^th March 2013. This according to the Petitioner is in defiance of the law laid down by Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. I.T.O. & Others (2003) 259 ITR 19.

¶17

4 Brief facts leading to this Petition, are as follows:-

¶18

(a) the impugned notice was served on 28^th March 2012;

¶19

(b) the reasons for the issue of impugned notice were furnished to the Petitioner on 24^th January 2013 and the reasons were objected to by a letter dated 31^st January 2013 inter alia, on the issue of jurisdiction to re-open the Assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06; and

¶20

(c) the Assessing Officer without disposing of the Petitioner's objections, passed the Assessment Order on 30^th March 2013 under section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2005-06

¶21

5 Therefore, ex facie, there has been a failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra). In the circumstances, we set aside the Assessment Order dated 30^th March 2013 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 and direct the Assessing Officer to first consider the Petitioner's objections to reasons as recorded in their letters dated 31^st January 2013 and an earlier letter dated 24^th March 2013. The Petitioner is permitted to file consolidated objections to the reasons within one week from today before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer would consider the objections to the reasons and pass an order disposing of the objections.

¶22

6 However, it is made clear that the Assessing Officer would not

2 of 3

S.R.JOSHI

WP-3894-2013

commence reassessment proceeding for a period of four weeks from the date of the communication of the order disposing of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons in support of the impugned notice dated 28^th March 2013.

¶27

7 The impugned Assessment Order was passed on 30^th March 2013 on the basis of the impugned notice dated 28^th March 2012. Thus within the period of limitation. This Petition has been filed on 4^th April 2013. However, as we are setting aside the Assessment Order dated 30^th March 2013, it is made clear that the Petitioner would not raise any objection on account of limitation to pass a fresh Assessment Order. This of course is subject to the Assessment Order being passed within a period of 15 weeks of the order of the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner.

¶28

8 With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶29

(G.S.KULKARNI,J.)

¶30

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

S.R.JOSHI

M/S. Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-7, Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-7, Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ceat Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2), Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Avantika Pratapsingh Morarji Vs Ashwini Kumar Commissioner of Income Tax CITY-5, Mumbai and Anr.

Gagan Trading Company Limited Vs the Income-Tax Officer, 5(1)(2), Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Farhat R. Pandor and Anr. Vs S.K.Laul and Ors.

Commissioner of INCOME-TAX-2 Vs M/S. Central Bank of India

Aroni Commercials Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1) and Anr.