Anjaney Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) New Delhi
High Court
11 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Anjaney Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) New Delhi
Date of order
11 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Anjaney Steels Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4) New Delhi, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI15.
+ W.P.(C) 2132/2016
ANJANEY STEELS PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4) NEW DELHI
& ANR.
..... Respondents Through: Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R% 11.03.2016
CM No. 9151/2016 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2132/2016
3. This is a writ petition seeking quashing of a notice issued to the Petitioner on 27[th] March 2015 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) reopening the assessment for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09. Although no specific prayer is made in this regard, the Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 16[th] February 2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4) rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 2132/2016
4. There are three grounds on which the notice was sought to be assailed. The first is that the notice was issued at a wrong address and that there was no actual service of notice on the Petitioner. The second is that the authority which gave approval under Section 151 (2) of the Act did so mechanically. The third ground, on merits, is that there were no valid reasons for reopening the assessment which was based entirely on the statement made by one Mr. Shyam Shankar Gupta during the course of his assessment for AY 2009-10 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-11 in those proceedings.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner at some length, the Court is of the view that the above grounds do not merit consideration by the Court at this stage in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It would be appropriate for the AO to examine each of these grounds in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
MARCH 11, 2016
dn
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
W.P.(C) No. 2132/2016
Page 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.