Browntape Technologies Privatelimited, H v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 1[St]Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Plot

Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.627 OF 2022 Browntape Technologies PrivateLimited, H. No. 846/1(5), Flat No. F2, Xenia Building Kadamba Depot Road, Alto Porvorim, Soccoro, Bardez, Goa — 403521. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 1[st]Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa -403001. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Panaji, Aayakar Bhawan, 1[st] Floor, Plot No 5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza,Panaji, Goa -403001 3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,Karnataka & Goa Region Central Revenue Building, Queens Road Bengaluru 560001 4. The Union of India,Through the Secretary, Government of India,Ministry of Finance,New Delhi - 110 011. … Respondents Mr Jay Bhandari and Mr P. Karpe, Advocates for the Petitioner.Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM:M.S. SONAK &VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATE :5[th] APRIL 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. SONAK, J.) 1.Heard Mr Bhandari with Mr Karpe for the petitioner and MsSusan Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2.Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.The petitioner challenges order dated 29.07.2022 made underSection 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Said Act) interalia onthe ground that the same was made without considering the objectionsfiled by the petitioner. 4.The record shows that the petitioner was served with a noticedated 25.05.2022 seeking to reopen the assessment for the AssessmentYear 2016-17. This notice was issued in compliance to the Hon'bleSupreme Court's order dated 04.05.2022 and CBDT instructionno.01/2022 dated 11.05.2022. 5.The petitioner filed objections to the above notice. Thepetitioner has placed on record the acknowledgement receipt and theacknowledgement number which shows that such response was filed on 11.07.2022. In the response/objections the petitioner had alsoapplied for condonation of delay in filing the response. 6.The issue about condonation no longer survives because therespondents issued to the petitioner yet another notice dated14.07.2022 seeking to reopen assessment for the year 2016-17. Tothis fresh notice, the petitioner filed response/objections on21.07.2022. This is evident from the acknowledgement receiptproduced on record by the petitioner. 7.By the impugned order dated 29.07.2022, the respondents haveconcluded that there was a case made out for issuance of notice underSection 148 of the said Act relevant to Assessment Year 2016-17 as theincome had indeed escaped assessment. This order records that inspiteof the opportunity granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has failedto file any objections to the notices issued. 8.In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is reiteratedthat the petitioner's objections were never received. However, there isno response to the two acknowledgement receipts placed on record bythe petitioner. There is not even any allegation about suchacknowledgment receipts being fabricated documents. Theseacknowledgement receipts have been generated by the system and inthe absence of any doubt about the authenticity of suchacknowledgment receipts, there is no case made out to doubt the petitioner's statement made on oath that objections were filed notonce but twice to the notices issued by the respondents. 9.Accordingly, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated29.07.2022 was made without considering the petitioner's objectionsand based on the improper premise that it was the petitioner who hadfailed to file the objections. On this short ground, the impugnedorder dated 29.07.2022 will have to be set aside. 10.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2022but grant liberty to the respondents to consider petitioner's objectionsand pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions ofall parties are specifically left open. petitioner's statement made on oath that objections were filed notonce but twice to the notices issued by the respondents. 9.Accordingly, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated29.07.2022 was made without considering the petitioner's objectionsand based on the improper premise that it was the petitioner who hadfailed to file the objections. On this short ground, the impugnedorder dated 29.07.2022 will have to be set aside. 10.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2022but grant liberty to the respondents to consider petitioner's objectionsand pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions ofall parties are specifically left open. 11.Since the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 is set aside eventhe consequential notice dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 of thesaid Act is set aside with liberty as aforesaid. 12.The rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms.There shall however be no order for costs. VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. Digitally signed by NITI K NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKARDate: 2023.04.06 14:35:28 +05'30' M.S. SONAK, J.