Disposed

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

Bombay HC14 Jul 2014WP/980/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging reopening notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Finding the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of objections to reopening reasons as mandated by GKN Driveshrafts, the Court set aside the assessment order. It directed the officer to dispose of consolidated objections first and prohibited proceeding until the staying order lapses.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order dated 3.3.2014 set aside; Petitioner allowed to file consolidated objections; Assessing Officer barred from commencing proceedings for four weeks.

Ceat Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

wp980-14.doc

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.980 OF 2014

¶7

CEAT Limited ...Petitioner vs. 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr.A.K.Jasani, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs.S.V.Bharucha, for the Respondents-Revenue.

¶10

CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 14^th JULY, 2014

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

At the request of the Counsel this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to two notices dated 8.3.2013 and 25.3.2013 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) by the Assessing office seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

¶13

The petitioner was furnished reasons by a communication dated 6.12.2013 in respect of both the impugned notices dated 8.3.2013 and 25.3.2013. The petitioners by a diverse letters filed their objections to reopening of the assessment for the Assessment year 2008-09 by both the impugned notices. The Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner,

wp980-14.doc

2/3

Pvr

passed an order of assessment under Section 143(1) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 3.3.2014.

¶18

We find that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case “GKN Driveshrafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO; (259 ITR 19)” has not been followed by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid decision requires the Assessing Officer not only to furnish reasons for the proposed reopening of the assessment but also has to dispose of the objection to the reasons filed by an assessee by a speaking order. In this case the Assessing Officer has in defiance of the law as laid down in the case “GKN Driveshrafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO; (259 ITR 19)”, passed the assessment order dated 3.3.2014.

¶19

In view of the above, we set aside the Assessment order dated 3.3.2014 passed in respect of Assessment year 2008-09. We note that the petitioner had, by diverse communications dated 8.4.2014, 1.1.2014 and 4.2.2014, filed their objections to the grounds in support of the impugned notices furnished by the Assessing Officer. We permit the petitioner to file a consolidated objections to both the impugned notices within a period of two weeks from today before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, will dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner in respect of both the impugned notices.

¶20

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

wp980-14.doc

3/3

Pvr

commence re-assessment proceedings for a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the stay granted by this Court dated 28.3.2014 to the impugned notices dated 8.3.2013 and 25.3.2013 would continue for a period of fourteen weeks from the date of communication of the order of the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections.

¶25

Accordingly the petition is disposed with the above directions. No

¶26

order as to costs.

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

plasticotes investments pvt.ltd9EARDLIER Known as Chimay Investmnets Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner or Income-Tax-Ii

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

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

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