Madhu Biyani, Plot v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur, N.c.r. Building, Statuecircle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15837/2015 Madhu Biyani, Plot No.8, D.K. Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara,Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur, N.C.R. Building, StatueCircle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Kanishk SinghalMr. Aditya BohraMs. Priyanshi RoongtaMr. Kanishk SinghalMr. Aditya BohraMs. Priyanshi Roongta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order Reportable 08/02/2024 -Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral): 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated04.06.2015 rejecting the objections filed for reopening of the caseunder Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Actof 1961’). 2.The petitioner was issued show-cause notice (for short ‘SCN’)on 21.03.2015 under Section 148 of Act of 1961. The petitionerafter filing return and in consonance with the decision of theSupreme Court in the case of G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs.Income Tax Officer & Ors. reported in 259 ITR page 19, aftergetting reasons from the Assessing Officer, filed the objections. Mainly two objections were raised, firstly that the proceedings aretime barred, secondly that there was no prior approval from thecompetent authority for issuance of SCN. The objections wererejected vide order dated 04.06.2015, hence the present petition.It would be relevant to note that during pendency of the writpetition, interim order was in operation. 3.Inter alia the grievance raised in the petition that theobjection with regard to the proceeding being time barred has notbeen considered and decided. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. 5.Before proceeding further, relevant para of G.K.N Driveshafts(supra) is quoted below:- “We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the orderunder challenge. However, we clarify that when a noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, theproper course of action for the noticee is to file return and ifhe so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. Theassessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within areasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitledto file objections to issuance of notice and the assessingofficer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speakingorder. In the instant case, as the reasons have beendisclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has todispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speakingorder, before proceeding with the assessment in respect ofthe abovesaid five assessment years.” 6.From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming thatthough the objections raised by the petitioner that reassessmentproceedings are time barred, has been noted but not consideredand decided. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass speaking order after considering the objections filed by thepetitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and thematter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to proceed inaccordance with law. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /35