Nitinkumar v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,Range – 1, Aurangabad.range – 1, Aurangabad

1 wp 3699.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2022 Nitinkumar S/o Rishiram Agrawal,Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Business,R/o 343/F-17, Near Jindal House,Sambhaji Nagar, Bus Stand Road,Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna... Petitioner Versus 1.Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,Range – 1, Aurangabad.Range – 1, Aurangabad. 2.Income Tax Officer,Ward – 1, Jalna,Tq. and Dist. Jalna.Ward – 1, Jalna,Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 3.Income Tax Officer,National Faceless AssessmentCentre, Delhi.National Faceless AssessmentCentre, Delhi. .. Respondents Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : DATE : R. D. DHANUKA ANDS. G. MEHARE, JJ.22ND MARCH, 2022. ORAL JUDGMENT(Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.) :- .Rule. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel waives servicefor respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2 wp 3699.22 of India, the petitioner has impugned the notice dated 31.03.2021issued by the respondent No. 2 U/Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short “I. T. Act”) and also order dated 01.03.2022passed by the respondent No. 3 thereby rejecting the objectionfiled by the petitioner. 3. On 28[th] March, 2018, the petitioner filed his return ofincome tax for the assessment year 2016-2017. On 31.03.2021,the respondent No. 2 issued notice U/Sec. 148 of the I. T. Act tothe petitioner for reassessment of the assessment year 2016-2017. On 01.04.2021 Finance Act, 2021 came into force andentire mechanism of reopening of assessment U/Sec. 147 to 151of the Income Tax Act has been changed. 4.The respondent No. 2 supplied the copy of the reasonsrecorded before issuance of the impugned notice to the petitioner.On 24.02.2022 the petitioner filed objection to the reasonsrecorded and specifically raised objection regarding tenability ofthe proceedings. On 01.03.2022, the respondent No. 3 rejectedthe objection filed by the petitioner. On 05[th] March, 2022, thepetitioner filed the present petition. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attentionto the reasons recorded by the respondent No. 2. In the saidreasons the respondent No. 2 relied upon the communicationfrom ACIT, Central Circle – 4(4), Mumbai. The assessing officerof Shri Renukamata Multistate Co-op. Urban Bank Credit 3 wp 3699.22 Society Ltd. based on the said information, the respondent No. 2issued notice U/Sec. 148 of the I. T. Act upon the petitioner. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited ourattention to Section 153A/153C of the I. T. Act and would submitthat, case of the petitioner would fall U/Sec. 153-C of the I. T. Actand not U/Sec. 147 of the I. T. Act. He submits that, the entireproceeding initiated by the respondents is thus withoutjurisdiction. 3 wp 3699.22 Society Ltd. based on the said information, the respondent No. 2issued notice U/Sec. 148 of the I. T. Act upon the petitioner. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited ourattention to Section 153A/153C of the I. T. Act and would submitthat, case of the petitioner would fall U/Sec. 153-C of the I. T. Actand not U/Sec. 147 of the I. T. Act. He submits that, the entireproceeding initiated by the respondents is thus withoutjurisdiction. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attentionto the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 on 01[st]March, 2022 and would submit that, though various objectionswere raised by the petitioner to the reasons supplied to thepetitioner, the respondent No. 3 did not consider any of theobjections raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel for thepetitioner placed reliance on the judgment dated 15[th] February,2022 of this Court in a case of Tata Capital Financial ServicesLimited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1)and othersin Writ Petition No. 546 of 2022 and moreparticularly paragraph No. 8. This Court in the said judgmenthas formulated various guidelines to be followed by the assessingofficer while dealing with the objections raised by the assessee.It is held that while communicating the reason for re-opening theassessment, a copy of the standard form/request sent by theAssessing Officer for obtaining approval of the Superior Officershould itself be provided to the assessee. He submits that, this 4 wp 3699.22 Court has categorically held that the order disposing theobjections should deal with each objections and give properreasons for the conclusion. 8.Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for respondents onthe other hand would submit that, in the impugned order therespondent No. 3 has recorded reasons and has rightly rejectedthe objections raised by the petitioner after adverting to Section147 and 153 of the I. T. Act. Thus no interference is warranted inthe impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3. 9.We have perused the reasons annexed by the respondentNo. 2 to the petition. REASONS AND CONCLUSION 10.The petitioner has raised specific objection to the reasonssupplied by the respondent in respect of maintainability of thenotice issued by the respondent No. 2 U/Sec. 148 of the I. T. Actand has specifically contended that, the case of the petitionerwould fall under Section 153C of the I. T. Act and not U/Sec. 147of the I. T. Act. 11.A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that, inpara No. 5 of the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 hassimplicitor quoted Section 153C of the I. T. Act and has held thatin view of the said section, it was clear that, assessing officer hadreopened case of the petitioner correctly as per the provisions of 5 wp 3699.22 Section 147 of the I. T. Act. In our view, there are no reasonsrecorded by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order.Various objections raised by the petitioner are required to beanswered by sufficient and cogent reasons. The respondent No. 3has not given any reasons while dealing with the objection andpassing the impugned order. 11.A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that, inpara No. 5 of the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 hassimplicitor quoted Section 153C of the I. T. Act and has held thatin view of the said section, it was clear that, assessing officer hadreopened case of the petitioner correctly as per the provisions of 5 wp 3699.22 Section 147 of the I. T. Act. In our view, there are no reasonsrecorded by the respondent No. 3 in the impugned order.Various objections raised by the petitioner are required to beanswered by sufficient and cogent reasons. The respondent No. 3has not given any reasons while dealing with the objection andpassing the impugned order. 12.This Court in a case of Tata Capital FinancialServices Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 1(3)(1) and others (supra) after adverting to variousjudgments of various Courts including the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. reported in [2019] 410 ITR 244 (SC) hasformulated guidelines to be followed by the revenue whiledealing with the objection raised by the assessee to the reasonsfurnished by the Assessing Officer. It is held by this Court that,if the reasons make reference to any other document or a letteror a report, such document or letter or report should be enclosedto the reasons. The order disposing the objections should dealwith each objections and give proper reasons for the conclusion.In our view, the impugned order is in total violation of theprinciples laid down by this Court in a case of Tata CapitalFinancial Services Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and others (supra). The AssessingOfficer has to deal with each and every objection raised by thepetitioner by recording reasons. The respondent No. 3, however,in this case has passed the impugned order in a very casual way. 6 wp 3699.22 13.In view of the above, we pass the following order. O R D E R A.The impugned order dated 01.03.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 annexed at Exhibit – E of the writ petition is quashed and set aside. respondent No. 3 annexed at Exhibit – E of the writ petition is quashed and set aside. B.The proceedings are restored before the respondent No. 3 for deciding objections raised by the petitioner to the reasons supplied by the respondent No. 2 while deciding the matter afresh and in accordance with law and after complying with the principles laid down by this Courtin a case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and others(supra) without being influenced by the observationsmade and conclusions drawn in the impugned order dated 01.03.2022.for deciding objections raised by the petitioner to the reasons supplied by the respondent No. 2 while deciding the matter afresh and in accordance with law and after complying with the principles laid down by this Courtin a case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and others(supra) without being influenced by the observationsmade and conclusions drawn in the impugned order dated 01.03.2022. C.The respondent No. 3 shall decide the matter within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of publication of this order and shall communicate the order that would be passed to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of order.period of three (03) weeks from the date of publication of this order and shall communicate the order that would be passed to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of order. D.If the order that would be passed by the respondent No. 3 is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner 7 wp 3699.22 C.The respondent No. 3 shall decide the matter within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of publication of this order and shall communicate the order that would be passed to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of order.period of three (03) weeks from the date of publication of this order and shall communicate the order that would be passed to the petitioner within a period of one (01) week from the date of order. D.If the order that would be passed by the respondent No. 3 is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner 7 wp 3699.22 may file appropriate proceedings as permissible under law. E.The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause “D”. Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. F.If the objection raised by the petitioner is rejected by the respondent No. 3, no adverse order shall be passed by the respondent No. 3 for a period of four (04) weeks from the date of communication of the order. [S. G. MEHARE, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.] bsb/March 22