I)Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd v. Income-Tax Officer [[1977] 106 Itr 1 (Sc)];Officer [[1977] 106 Itr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18180 of 2021 ========================================================== JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC VersusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INT. TAXN) 1,AHMEDABAD ==========================================================Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANIandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 07/12/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1.The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India challenging the notice issued by therespondent under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act dated31.03.2021 directing the petitioner to furnish the return ofincome for the assessment year 2014-15 on the ground thatthe assumption of jurisdiction itself is bad in law. 2.The petitioner is a foreign company having project officein India as per the approval of the Reserve Bank of Indiawhich is engaged in the business of extraction of crudepetroleum and natural gas and having its tax residence in theUnited States. It has filed its original return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring the totalincome of Rs. 104,83,51,430/-. The revised return of incomewas filed on 31.03.2016 at Rs. 67,42,11,740/-. 2.1.The petitioner’s case was selected for scrutinyassessment relating to the payment under Section 35(i)(ii) on24.11.2016. This has been replied to by the petitioner on01.12.2016 and 08.12.2016. The order of assessment waspassed on 15.02.2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section144(C) of the Income-Tax Act determining the income at Rs.130,80,53,520/-. 2.2.A notice came to be issued on 06.10.2020 where thepetitioner was asked to furnish the details such as nature ofexpanses incurred under Section 35(i)(ii) of the Income-TaxAct, names, PAN and addresses of the parties to whom thepayments were made. The petitioner made payment ofRs.65,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied ScientificResearch as contribution towards expenditure of Thalassemiaproject of the trust and against the said donation assessee hasclaimed weighted deduction under Section 35(i)(ii) of the ITAct amounting to Rs. 1,13,75,000/-. 2.3.The respondent issued notice under Section 148 on31.03.2021 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2014-15. The reasons have furnished forreopening vide letter dated 11.05.2021 which had beenobjected to on 25.05.2021 and on 15.11.2021 the respondentdisposed of the objections which are under challenge beforethis Court with the following prayers: - “(a)quash and set aside the impugned notice atAnnexure A to this petition; (b)quash and set aside the impugned order atAnnexure H to this petition; (c)pending the admission, hearing and finaldisposal of this petition, to stay implementation andoperation of the notice at Annexure A to this petitionand stay further proceedings for assessment for A.Y.2014-15; (d)any other and further relief deemed just andproper be granted in the interest of justice; (e)to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3.We have heard learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkarappearing for the petitioner who has extensively taken usthrough the law and according to him, this is purely aquestion of law which arises for consideration as thereopening is beyond a period of four years and the reasonsrecorded do not, in any manner, say that there was anythingthat had been done on the part of the petitioner – assesseewhich has led to the income escaping the assessment. Inabsence of failure disclosed fully and truly all material facts, (d)any other and further relief deemed just andproper be granted in the interest of justice; (e)to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3.We have heard learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkarappearing for the petitioner who has extensively taken usthrough the law and according to him, this is purely aquestion of law which arises for consideration as thereopening is beyond a period of four years and the reasonsrecorded do not, in any manner, say that there was anythingthat had been done on the part of the petitioner – assesseewhich has led to the income escaping the assessment. Inabsence of failure disclosed fully and truly all material facts, any reopening beyond a period of four years from the end ofthe assessment year 2014-15 is unsustainable. There is nowhisper of the failure of the part of the petitioner of the trueand full disclosure in the reasons which have been furnishedand therefore, the petitioner has to be considered as a victimand with that being clear in the mind of the revenue also, thisnotice has been issued, and hence, this requires indulgence. 3.1.He has also supported his submissions with follwoingtwo authorities: - (i)Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)];Officer [[1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC)]; (ii)Shree Bansidhar Spg. & Wvg. Mills (P.) Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer [[1980] 3 Taxman 576 (Gujarat)].tax Officer [[1980] 3 Taxman 576 (Gujarat)]. 4.At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Soparkar seekswithdrawal of this petition. 5.The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J)