Quashed

Madhu Biyani v. Income Tax Officer

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CW/15837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court bench quashed an impugned order dated 04.06.2015 which rejected the petitioner's objections about time-barred reassessment proceedings without considering them. The court held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to pass a speaking order after considering the objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.06.2015 is set aside and matter remitted to Respondent No.1 to pass a speaking order.

Madhu Biyani Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15837/2015

¶3

Madhu Biyani, Plot No.8, D.K. Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur, N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gunjan Pathak with
	Mr. Kanishk Singhal
	Mr. Aditya Bohra
	Ms. Priyanshi Roongta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anuroop Singhi

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

Reportable

08/02/2024

Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral):-

¶14

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 04.06.2015 rejecting the objections filed for reopening of the case under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act of 1961’).

¶15

The petitioner was issued show-cause notice (for short ‘SCN’) on 21.03.2015 under Section 148 of Act of 1961. The petitioner after filing return and in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. reported in 259 ITR page 19, after getting reasons from the Assessing Officer, filed the objections.

¶16

[CW-15837/2015]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Mainly two objections were raised, firstly that the proceedings are time barred, secondly that there was no prior approval from the competent authority for issuance of SCN. The objections were rejected vide order dated 04.06.2015, hence the present petition. It would be relevant to note that during pendency of the writ petition, interim order was in operation.

¶19

Inter alia the grievance raised in the petition that the objection with regard to the proceeding being time barred has not been considered and decided.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.

¶21

Before proceeding further, relevant para of G.K.N Driveshafts(supra) is quoted below:-

¶22

“ We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order

¶23

under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years. ”

¶24

From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that though the objections raised by the petitioner that reassessment proceedings are time barred, has been noted but not considered and decided. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass

¶25

[CW-15837/2015]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

speaking order after considering the objections filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law.

¶28

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶29

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶30

Simple Kumawat /35

Madhu Biyani v. Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Biyani v. Income Tax Officer

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

Ram Babu Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Sultan Singh Vs Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors.

M/S Vishal Goods Transport Com Vs Dy Commissioner Appealsfirst

R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Jagdish Parasad Vishnu Kum Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jain Legal Heir of Late Shri Kailash Chand Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax