Disposed

Jaipur Jewels Global Ltd. (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19(1) and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2022WP/382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed three writ petitions regarding objections to Section 148 notices. The court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a personal hearing within six weeks, excluding the pendency period from the final assessment timeline per Asian Paints Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Remanded to Assessing Officer to consider submissions and grant personal hearing within six weeks; time from petition lodging excluded.

Jaipur Jewels Global Ltd. (Successor in Interest of… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

919TO922-WP.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2022

¶6

Jaipur Jewels Global Limited (Successor in interest of Jaiput Jewel partnership firm) ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1) & ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 382 OF 2022 WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 389 OF 2022

¶12

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶13

Mr. Devendra Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondent – Revenue. Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Amicus Curiae, present.

¶14

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2022.02.25 10:39:04 +0530

¶15

CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 22^nd FEBRUARY, 2022

¶16

COMMON ORDER:

¶17

Mr. Sharma has filed an affidavit-in-reply of one Praveen Kumar affirmed on 21^st February, 2022.

¶18

In the affidavit, it is stated that petitioner’s letter dated 3^rd March, 2017 was filed manually in the tapal of the Charge Circle 19.2 and when the merger of Charge Circle 19.2 with 19.1 happened manual tapal was not migrated.

¶19

Mr. Jain states that objections have been filed to the notice

¶20

1/3

¶21

919TO922-WP.DOC

¶22

issued under Section 148 in which the issue as to notice having been issued to a non-existing entity also has been raised. The objections have not been disposed in view of the order dated 25^th January, 2022.

¶23

We dispose these petitions without any observation on merits and the Assessing Officer is directed to dispose the objections in accordance with law.

¶24

The matter is remanded to the concerned Assessing Officer, who shall consider the submissions made by petitioner and after granting a personal hearing to petitioner pass order disposing the objections within a period of six weeks from the date this order is uploaded. The notice of personal hearing shall be given at least seven working days in advance.

¶25

If the Assessing Officer is going to rely on any judgments/orders of any Court or Tribunal to pass the order disposing the objection, he shall provide a list thereof to petitioner along with the notice of personal hearing so that petitioner’s representative may deal with or distinguish it during the personal hearing. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter pass detailed and reasoned order dealing with every point of objections raised by petitioner.

¶26

The time from the date of lodging this petition, i.e., from

¶27

2/3

¶28

919TO922-WP.DOC

¶29

13^th January 2022 till today, shall be excluded. Once the order

¶30

on objection is passed, the final assessment order shall be passed after 30 days in accordance with the judgment in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-

¶31

tax¹

¶32

Petitions disposed.

¶33

We had appointed Mr. Agrawal as an Amicus Curiae by the order dated 25^th January, 2022. Mr. Agrawal submitted to this Court a note along with various judgments and explained to this Court the effect of conversion of a partnership firm into a company. Though we have disposed off the petitions as above, we hereby acknowledge and record our appreciation to the assistance rendered by Mr. Agrawal.

¶34

1 [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay).

¶35

3/3

Jaipur Jewels Global Ltd. (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19(1) and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Jewels Global Ltd. (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19(1) and 4 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

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-10, Mumbai Vs Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-10 Vs Prothious Engineering Services Private Ltd.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX-10,MUMBAI Vs Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Thane Vs Sanjay Lalchand Bathija

Jaipur Jewels Global (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels a Partnership Firm) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 19 (1) and 3 Ors.

Jaipur Jewels Global Limited (Successor in Interest of Jaipur Jewels a Partnership Firm) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 19(1) and 3 Ors.