Remanded

Wavy Construction LLP v. Asst.Commissioner of Income TAX,CIRCLE-22(3) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2021WP/3368/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order disposing of an objection against reopening income tax assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for reconsideration with a direction for personal hearing and clarification of figures.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated November 25, 2019 disobjection to reopening is quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration with direction for personal hearing and clarification of figures within two weeks.

Wavy Construction LLP Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp 3368.19.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

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

¶4

Digitally signed by URMILA URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.09.22 17:59:39 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3368 OF 2019

¶6

Wavy Construction LLP..Petitioner
vs.
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 22(3) and ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Jehangir D.Mistri, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.B.V.Jhaveri, for
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Sham V. Walve, for Respondents No. 1 & 2 – Revenue.

¶9

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
 M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

 DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.Mr.Walve states that an affidavit of one Biju Thomas,

¶13

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax sworn on September 17, 2021
has been filed in compliance with the order dated September 14,
2021. We have considered the affidavit and we accept the
explanation given therein.

¶14

2.The assessment order dated May 19, 2021 is hereby

¶15

quashed and set aside. Naturally, consequential notices, if any, are

¶16

1/3

¶17

wp 3368.19.doc

¶18

also quashed and set aside.

¶19

3.Keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties,
we pass the following order with the concurrence of the counsel.

¶20

(A) The impugned order dated November 25, 2019 (Exhibit ‘P’ to
the petition) disposing the objection raised against reopening of
assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’)
is quashed and set aside.

¶21

(B) The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to
reconsider the objection dated May 6, 2019 and pass further orders.
Should petitioner wish to file any further submissions in response to
the letter dated April 23, 2019 giving reasons for reopening
assessment for AY 2012-13, petitioner may do so within two weeks
from today. No extension will be granted.

¶22

(C)Should petitioner seek any clarification regarding the
figures which are mentioned in the reasons for reopening, the
concerned authority shall provide the same within two weeks of
receiving the communication from petitioner.

¶23

2/3

¶24

wp 3368.19.doc

¶25

(D)The concerned authority may further dispose of the
objection to the reopening of assessment after giving a personal
hearing to the petitioner as per Rules prescribed.

¶26

4.We clarify that we have not made any observations on
the merits of the case.

¶27

5.Mr.Walve states that in case of reopening upto the stage
of disposal of objection, it remains with the jurisdictional Assessing
Officer, and once it is disposed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,
the matter goes to Faceless Scheme for further assessment.
Statement accepted.

¶28

6. Writ Petition disposed.

¶29

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶30

 (K.R.SHRIRAM, J.)

¶31

3/3

Wavy Construction LLP v. Asst.Commissioner of Income TAX,CIRCLE-22(3) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wavy Construction LLP v. Asst.Commissioner of Income TAX,CIRCLE-22(3) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar R. Bansal Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income TAX-13(3)

Anilkumar R. Bansal Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income TAX-13(3)

Pinkrose Realty Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Assessment Unit and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9 Vs M/S Globatronix (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

Premlata Mohan Agarwal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Vs Income-Tax OFFICER-7(2)(1), Mumbai and 2 Ors.