Jin Bhakti Trust v. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4805 of 2022 ========================================================== JIN BHAKTI TRUST VersusINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADVOCATE, WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR. M.R.BHATT, SR. ADV. FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 29/08/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) In view of the compass of the controversy and having regard to therequest and consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, thepetition was taken up for final consideration today. 1.1Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Karan Sanghanifor M. R. Bhatt & Co. waives service of Rule on behalf of therespondents. 1.2Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani assisted bylearned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learnedsenior advocate Mr. M. R. Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. KaranSanghani for M. R. Bhatt & Co. for the respondent revenue. 2.By filling this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, thechallenge is directed against notice dated 30.3.2021 issued by theAssessing Officer, Ward 5 (3) (1) Ahmedbad. It is a notice under section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner in respect ofAssessment Year 2016-2017. 3.Noticing the basic facts, the petitioner who was a charitable trustfiled its return of income in the year under consideration on 17.9.2016, inwhich ‘Nil’ income was declared. It appears that the return of thepetitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice dated30.3.2021 under section 148 of the Act. 3.1The petitioner furnished return of income on 13.4.2021 for the yearunder consideration in response to the notice dated 30.3.2021 andrequested for supply of reasons for re-opening. Thereafter, the petitionerraised objections against re-opening by addressing communication dated10.1.2022, which has remained unanswered. 4.While the detailing of the reasons is not necessary in light of theorder being passed by the court, it may be stated that the crux of thereason was that the petitioner trust made large cash deposits during theyear under consideration as per the information received by thedepartment from the inside portal. In reply to the notices in that regard,the petitioner appears to have raised certain objections by letter dated10.1.2022 stating that the reopening was not justified. The primarygrievance of the petitioner is that the objections raised by the petitioneragainst the re-opening notice has not been replied. 5.Learned senior advocate submitted that grievance of the petitioner would be satisfied if the court requires the authority to appropriatelyconsider and dispose of the objections within stipulated time.Responding to this submission, learned senior advocate for the IncomeTax authority submitted that the authorities will look into the objectionsand dispose of the same within the time the court may direct. 6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposedof by directing the competent authority of the respondent Income Taxauthority to consider the objections dated 10.1.2022 filed by the petitionerto the re-opening notice under section 148 of the Act within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of the order on its own merits and inaccordance with law. 6.1It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the caseof the either side and nor has expressed anything on merits. 6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposedof by directing the competent authority of the respondent Income Taxauthority to consider the objections dated 10.1.2022 filed by the petitionerto the re-opening notice under section 148 of the Act within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of the order on its own merits and inaccordance with law. 6.1It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the caseof the either side and nor has expressed anything on merits. 6.2It goes without saying that since the court has not gone into themerits, all the contentions are kept open for the parties to be raised beforethe authority. 7.This petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute inthe said terms. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)