Mani Enterprise v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4896 of 2022 ========================================================== MANI ENTERPRISE VersusTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1) ========================================================== Appearance:MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANIandHONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 15/11/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1.The petitioner is before this Court seeking to questionthe show cause notice issued under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which sought toreopen the income tax assessment of the petitioner for theassessment year 2016-17. 2.The respondent supplied the copy of reasons forreopening vide notice dated 07.01.2022 which broadly statesthat on account of the petitioner being beneficiary of bogusLTCG/STCL in relation to a penny stock, the respondent has areason to believe that income of Rs. 79,88,004/- has escaped the assessment. 2.1.The petitioner raised the objection on 27.01.2022requesting the respondent to drop the reassessmentproceeding initiated for the year under consideration. 3. The petitioner chose to approach this Court on 05.03.2022 apprehending that the respondent since has notdisposed of the objection raised by the petitioner, it shallframe the assessment pursuant to the issuance of noticewhich is impugned. With the following prayers, the presentpetition has been filed:- “(a) quash and set aside the impugned notice atANNEXURE "A ” to this petition; (b) pending the admission, hearing and final disposalof this petition, to stay the implementation andoperation of the notice at ANNEXURE “A" to thispetition and stay the further proceedings for theAssessment Year 2016-17; (c) any other and further relief deemed just andproper be granted in the interest of justice; (d) to provide for the cost of this petition.” 3.1.This Court (Mr. J.B.Pardiwala, J. as his lordship then wasand Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, J.) while issuing notice on08.03.2022 passed the following order:- “We have Mr. Tushar Himani, the learnedsenior counsel assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, thelearned counsel appearing for the writ applicant. Let Notice be issued to the respondentsreturnable on 26.04.2022. 7 (b). Let there be ad interim order in terms of para The respondent No.2 shall be served by Email. Direct service is permitted qua respondentNo.1. Registry to list Special Civil Application No.4876 of 2022 with this matter” 4.The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent no.1denying each and every averments and urging that theprocedure prescribed under the GKN Driveshafts judgmenthas not been completed, hence, the petition is premature. Italso further has contended that all other grounds raisedagainst the reopening of assessment are not sustainable. 5.We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. TusharHemani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh forthe petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. VarunPatel with learned Standing Counsel Mr. Dev Patel for therespondent authority. 6.Our attention is drawn to the order dated 09.03.2022 Email. Direct service is permitted qua respondentNo.1. Registry to list Special Civil Application No.4876 of 2022 with this matter” 4.The affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent no.1denying each and every averments and urging that theprocedure prescribed under the GKN Driveshafts judgmenthas not been completed, hence, the petition is premature. Italso further has contended that all other grounds raisedagainst the reopening of assessment are not sustainable. 5.We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. TusharHemani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh forthe petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. VarunPatel with learned Standing Counsel Mr. Dev Patel for therespondent authority. 6.Our attention is drawn to the order dated 09.03.2022 received through e-mail by the assessee in relation to the veryassessment year. The total income of the assessee iscomputed as nil. This, according to learned counsel, is nolonger available on the website. The reason put forth by theother side is possibly because on 08.03.2022 the Courtgranted the interim order in favour of the petitioner. Not onlythe issue of disposal of objection has been put to the rest, but,ultimately, the assessment has been framed where no additionhas been made to the income which has thus favoured thepetition. The cause of the petition therefore no longersurvives. 7.In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of.Interim relief stands vacated forthwith. (SONIA GOKANI, J) Bhoomi (MAUNA M. BHATT,J)