Partly allowed

Vinay Pratap Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CW/1711/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notices under Section 148 for AYs 2001-04 based on additions from AY 2001-02 later deleted in appeal. The Court held that since the basis for reopening no longer existed, rejecting objections without addressing this was impermissible. Impugned orders were set aside and matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting objections are set aside; matter remitted to respondent to decide objections afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Vinay Pratap Singh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12280-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1711/2006

¶4

Vinay Pratap Singh S/o Shri S.b. Singh Proprietor M/s. Silver Jewels, 1/202 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ashok Singh S/o Shri B.singh.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak assisted by Ms.Vartika Mehra

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

12/03/2024

¶13

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶14

This petition is filed challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, and the orders rejecting the objections.

¶15

The brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged in business of export of Silver Jewellery, Precious and Semi-Precious Stones. The returns for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were filed declaring income of Rs.2,56,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, additions were made and vide order dated 30.03.2004 the taxable income was determined as Rs.1,24,87,189/-. Relying upon enquiries conducted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2001-02. Notice dated 22.06.2004 under Section

¶16

[CW-1711/2006]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

148 of the Act for assessment year mentioned above was issued. The petitioner filed returns in pursuance of the notices. On 16.12.2005 reasons for re-opening assessment were supplied. Inter alia objection was raised that the additions made in Assessment Year 2001-02 to the tune of Rs.1,16,96,121/- were deleted by the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 28.02.2005 and the appeal effect was given by the Department. The objections were rejected by the orders communicated vide covering letter dated 23.02.2006, hence, present petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very basis for issuance of assessment notices no longer exists on acceptance of the appeal. The contention is that the objection raised was dealt with.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Department defends the impugned orders.

¶21

The Supreme Court in the case of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors. reported in 259 ITR Page 19 held that after issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act on filing of the return by the petitioner, the reasons for reopening are to be supplied and the objections filed by the assessee are to be decided by passing the order.

¶22

For issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act reliance was placed upon discrepancies noted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2001-02.

¶23

It is undisputed fact that substantial additions made for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were deleted in appeal. While rejecting the objections in spite of specific objection that the

¶24

[CW-1711/2006]

¶25

appeal for Assessment Year 2001-02 has been accepted, the same was not dealt with. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the objections are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for deciding the objections afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶26

In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner appear in the office of respondent on 15.04.2024 at 11:00 am.

¶27

During pendency of the petition further proceedings were stayed, to avoid complications till objections are decided, the stay proceedings shall deem to be continued for all intent and purposes.

¶28

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶29

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶30

Monika/Sudeepak/9

¶31

Whether Reportable : Yes

Vinay Pratap Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Pratap Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip

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

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu Vs Union of India

Mamta Kumari Atal D/O Narain Lal Raigar, W/O Rakesh Arya Vs Smt. Aparna Arora (Additional Charge)

The Union of India Vs Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri Govind Prasad Sharma

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, Vs Usha Sharma

Gopal Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh Rathore Vs Shri Mukesh Tiwari

Mahaveer S/O Mohanlal, Vs Duarkebai D/O Shri Purilal W/O Shri Mahaveer