M/S.siemens A.g. & Anr., Mumbai v. Samruddhi D. Hande,Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-18(1),Mumbai & Ors.…

bsb 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2557 OF 2014 M/s.Siemens A.G. & anr., Mumbai. … Petitioners v/s Samruddhi D. Hande,Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-18(1),Mumbai & ors.… Respondents Mr.P.J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate along with Mr.Nitesh Joshi, Advocate i/by Mr.Atul K. Jasani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Hriday Narain, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, J.DATED : 13 OCTOBER, 2014 P.C.: The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the notice dated 31 March 2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act), seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2.The petitioners have been served on 25 August 2014 the reasons in support of the impugned notice dated 31 March 2014. However, the petitioners have not filed their objections to the reasons in support of the impugned notice. This is for the reason that the Supreme Court in GKN Drivershaft (India) Ltd. v/s ITO, reported in 259 ITR 19 which requires a noticee under Section 148 of the Act to file its Return of Income before bsb 2 filing its objections to the reasons. It is the petitioners' contention that the impugned notice is issued to an AOP, when no such entity is in existence. Thus, neither could the Return of Income be filed nor the objections to the grounds in support of the impugned notice be taken. 3.Mr.Hriday Narain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue states that, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioners' objections to the impugned notice and the reasons in support thereof would be entertained by the Assessing Officer. These objections of the petitioners would be entertained even though the alleged AOP to whom the notice is addressed has not filed its Return of Income. 4.In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to file their objections to the impugned notice and the reasons in support thereof including their objections to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice within a period of three weeks from today. This filing of objections is without prejudice to the petitioners' contentions that there is no AOP in existence. Moreover, the filing of the objections should not be construed as the petitioners submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer or the Act. The Assessing Officer to examine the objections on its own merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 5.In the meantime, to obviate the difficulty of limitation, we direct that the impugned notice dated 31 March 2014 be stayed for a period of four weeks from the date the Assessing Officer communicates the disposal of the objections to the petitioners herein. bsb 3 6.Petition disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)