M/S Cogent Realtors Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Gurgaon

CWP No.297// of 2077 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH 115 Civil Writ Petition No.291/77 oft 20Date of decision: December 20, 2017 M/s Cogent Realtors Pvt. Ltd, Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Gurgaon ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL''''' Present:Mr.|Ajay Vohra, sr. Advocate withMr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Aavocate andMr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. '''''' AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) 1.This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CVVNos.291// and 29231 of 201/ as learned counsel for the petitioner(s)submitted that identical issue has been raised therein. For brevity, thefacts are being extracted from CWP No.291// of 2017. 2DThe petitioner-Firm has approached this Court, by way ofinstant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution ofIndia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, prohibitionor any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the CWP No.297// of 2077 notice dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) and other consequentialnotices dated 27.03.2017, 04.08.2017, 21.08.2017, 02.11.2017 and23.11.2017, collectively appended as Annexure P-2(colly.) issuedunder Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,‘the Act’) for financial year 2013-14 by the respondent. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugnednotice/subsequent notices issued by the respondents have beenchallenged by submitting reply (Annexure P-3) collectively, which wasfollowed by Annexure P-4. It was argued that the notice which hasbeen issued is totally without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer is notsure as to under which provision i.e. Section 194C or 194-I of the Act,the TDS was required to be deducted by the petitioner, 4After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner andperusing the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the meritsof the controversy and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court inGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-lTax Officer and others(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC),whereby the Apex Court had held that tnpursuance to notice for re-assessment issued under Section 148 ofthe Act, the proper course of action ts to file objections and theAssessing Officer is required to decide the same by passing aspeaking order before proceeding further in the matter. It was laiddown as under': ‘We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order underchallenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under CWP No.297// of 2077 Section 748of the Income-tax Act Is issued, the proper courseof action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, toseek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer isbound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receiptof reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuanceof notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of thesame by passing a speaking oraer. In the instant case, as thereasons nave been disclosed in these proceedings, theAssessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, bypassing a speaking Order before proceeding with theassessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessmentyears. | 5. 5.In view of the above, we dispose of the present writpetition by directing respondent No.1 to decide the objections filed bythe petitioner before proceeding further in the matter, on or before31.01.2018, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.6.Needless to say, anything observed herein shall not betaken to be expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE December 20, 2017sonia gugnanl (AMIT RAWAL)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?Whether reportable’ YesYes