Amit Gupta Huf v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Jaipur

[2025:RJ-JP:5973-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20457/2019 Amit Gupta HUF, Having Its Address At 105, Ram Gali No. 6,Near AVM School, Raja Park, Jaipur 302004 In The State OfRajasthan Through Its Karta Shri Amit Gupta. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Jaipur Having Its Address At NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka with Ms.Apeksha BapnaFor Respondent(s): Mr.Sandeep Pathak with Mr.Arnav Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 11/02/2025 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J(ORAL): 1.This petition is filed aggrieved of initiation of proceedingsunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘theAct’) for assessment year 2014-15. 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner on 30.06.2014 filedIncome Tax Return for the assessment year 2014-15. The casewas selected in scrutiny and the order under Section 143(3) of theAct was passed on 18.03.2016. The notice under Section 148 ofthe Act was issued. The petitioner in pursuance to the noticedated 27.03.2019 filed return and after supply of the reasons,objections were filed on 07.11.2019. With the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, an annexure was attached dealing withthe objections of the petitioner. 3.The grievance raised is that the objections have not beendealt with by passing a speaking order. The objections were notgone into stating that on issuance of notice the petitioner filedreturn. 4.Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in thecase of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax OfficerAnd Ors. reported in 259 ITR Page 19. 5.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that theobjections filed by the petitioner were not worth acceptance,hence were rejected. 6.Before proceedings further, it would be relevant to quote theoperative part of the judgment passed in the case of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). “5. We see no justifiable reason to interferewith the order under challenge. However,we clarify that when a notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, theproper course of action for the notice is tofile return and if he so desires, to seekreasons for issuing notices. The assessingofficer is bound to furnish reasons within areasonable time. On receipt of reasons, thenotice is entitled to file objections toissuance of notice and the assessing officeris bound to dispose of the same by passinga speaking order. In the instant case, asthe reasons have been disclosed in theseproceedings, the assessing officer has todispose of the objections, is filed, bypassing a speaking order, beforeproceeding with the assessment in respectof the abovesaid five assessment years.6. Insofar as the appeals filed against theorder of assessment before theCommissioner (Appeals), we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the same, expeditiously. 7. With the above observations, the civil appeals are dismissed.” 7.The petitioner filed return in pursuance to the notice issuedunder Section 148 of the Act and on supply of the reasons,objections were filed. Annexure attached to the notice issuedunder Section 142 of the Act is not a speaking order and has notdealt with the objections raised by the petitioner. 8.The matter is remitted back to the respondent to decide theobjections in accordance with law. 9.The writ petition is allowed. 10.In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner through hisrepresentative appear in the office of the respondent on24.02.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/32 Reportable: Yes