Disposed

Geltee Pvt. Ltd., v. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014WP/650/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a writ challenging an income tax reopening notice beyond limitation, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to address all objections first. Liberty was granted to withdraw the petition subject to this direction, and an ad-interim stay was continued until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to withdraw petition and file objections with Assessing Officer; assessment notice stayed pending disposal of objections and four weeks thereafter.

Geltee Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

wp650.13

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.650 OF 2013

¶6

Geltec Pvt. Ltd .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax & ors ... Respondents ---

¶9

Mr.J.D.Mistry Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.S.G.Dalal for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondents

¶10

CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 08 JULY, 2014

¶11

P. C.

¶12

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice dated 21.3.2012 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for A.Y.2005-06. The petitioners has challenged the impugned notice inter alia on the ground that it was served beyond the period of limitation.

¶13

Although the petitioner has not filed its return of income consequent to the impugned notice, the reasons for issuing the impugned notice has been served upon it. However, the petitioners have not filed its objections to the reasons before the Assessing officer and has challenged

¶14

rng 2 wp650.13

¶15

the proceedings directly before us. Consequently the occasion for the Assessing Officer to dispose of the objections also did not arise. The Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd vs ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) requires the petitioners to make their objections to the reasons for reopening known to the Assessing Officer who would then deal with and dispose of the same. This has been specifically provided for so as to ensure that the re-opening of the finalized assessments are done only after due application of mind to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional requirements.

¶16

In view of the above, the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw this petition and file its objections with the Assessing Officer to the reasons served upon it in support of the impugned notice dated 21.3.2012. Liberty is granted.

¶17

However, we direct the Assessing Officer to deal with all the objections of the petitioners including the impugned notice not being served within the period of limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the filing of objections

¶18

rng 3 wp650.13

¶19

to the reasons cannot be construed as submitting to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer barring the petitioner from challenging the order of the Assessing Officer on its objections before this Court. It is also clarified that till such time as the Assessing Officer disposes of the objections of the petitioners and for four weeks thereafter, the Assessing Officer will not initiate any proceedings for re-assessment as laid down by this Court in Asian Paints Ltd vs DCIT reported in 296 ITR 90.

¶20

It is made clear that the ad-interim stay of the notice dated 21.3.2014 granted on 14.2.2013 will continue for a period of fourteen weeks from the date of the order of the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections.

¶21

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶22

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J)

¶23

rng 4 wp650.13

¶24

rng 5 wp650.13

¶25

rng 6 wp650.13

Geltee Pvt. Ltd., v. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geltee Pvt. Ltd., v. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

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

Dr. Ramesh Dinkar Samarth Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shri Amit Jhaveri Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Nishith Madanlal Desai Vs Commissioner of Income TAX-11

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) 1 (1) and 3 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.