Disposed

Nivedita Mahila Co-Operative Society Ltd., Navargaon, Sindewahi, Chandrapur v. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Chandrapur and Another

Bombay HC25 Mar 2022WP/501/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act without adjudicating the merits, directing the Assessing Officer to follow the prescribed procedure of giving reasons, accepting objections, and providing a four-week period before execution.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nivedita Mahila Co-Operative Society Ltd., Navargaon, Sindewahi… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP 501.22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.501/2022

¶6

Nivedita Mahila Co-operative Society Ltd., Chandrapur

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Chandrapur and another ... Respondents

¶8

Shri Saket Bhattad, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

Shri A.J. Bhoot, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This Petition challenges the notice dated 24 March 2021 issued by Respondent No.1-Assessing Officer, seeking to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶13

2 WP 501.22

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the last occasion had pointed out that the reasons were supplied to the Petitioner, and in spite of lodging the objections, the Petitioner has directly filed this Petition and the Respondents are not averse to consider the same and passing the orders thereon.

¶15

Through series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in respect of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a methodology has been evolved, whereby after receipt of notice the assessee is entitled to seek reasons in support and after reasons being so served, to lodge objections. These objections are dealt with by the Assessing Officer and if the Assessing Officer rejects the objections and proceeds further, the Assessing Officer is required to give four weeks time from the receipt of service of the orders on objections to the assessee. The mandate of four weeks is laid down by this Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax¹ .

¶16

The lodging of objections and considering the same by the Respondent Officers is in fact beneficial to the assessee as the assessee will get an opportunity to put forth its say before the Assessing Officer.

¶17

1 [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay)

¶18

3 WP 501.22

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the objections will be lodged before the Assessing Officer within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the Respondent-Assessing Officer will pass an appropriate order as per law.

¶20

In case the objections are rejected, the Petitioner has a remedy in law. After passing of the order, the Assessing Officer will not give effect to the order for a period of four weeks as per the direction in the decision of Asian Paints Ltd. (supra)

¶21

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶23

SANDEEPCHANDRASHEKHARDESHMUKH Digitally signed by SANDEEPCHANDRASHEKHARDESHMUKHDate: 2022.04.01 19:07:18+0530

¶24

Deshmukh

Nivedita Mahila Co-Operative Society Ltd., Navargaon, Sindewahi, Chandrapur v. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Chandrapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nivedita Mahila Co-Operative Society Ltd., Navargaon, Sindewahi, Chandrapur v. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Chandrapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra S/O Kailashchandra Sahu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai and Others

Rajni Surajsingh Pawar Vs the Governor of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Mumbai

Akhilesh S/O Dalbahadur Singh Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Gitesh Infrastructure, Thr. Its Proprietor, Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Parchake Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Warora, Chandrapur and Another

Anil S/O Satyanarayan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Education Dept. and Others

Ankit S/O Fatesingh Chouhan Vs Municipal Council, Sakoli, Thr. Chief Officer, Sakoli, Bhandara and Others