Revetaara Diabetics Private Limited v. The Income-Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(4)
High Court
31 Mar 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Revetaara Diabetics Private Limited v. The Income-Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(4)
Date of order
31 Mar 2021
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Revetaara Diabetics Private Limited v. The Income-Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 5(4), the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Revetaara Diabetics Private Limited,Represented by its Director,Mr.Sambhu Nath Choubey,No.3-6-376, 1[st] Floor, Skill Spectrum,Himayatnagar, TDD Kalyana Mandapam,Hydrebad 500 029. ... Petitioner in both W.Ps.Vs.
The Income-Tax Officer,Corporate Ward 5(4),121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent in both W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.No.33145 of 2018:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to callfor the records of the respondent pertaining to the order dated04.05.2018 bearing reference no.CW-5(4) AACCR 6843 B/11-12passed under Section 124 Income Tax Act, 1961 and to quash thesame.
Prayer in W.P.No.33149 of 2018:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to callfor the records of the respondent pertaining to the reassessmentnotice dated 26.03.218 bearing Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009433562(1), issued under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961.
For Petitioner : Mr.Akhil Bhansali(in both W.Ps) For Respondent : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan
(in both W.Ps) Senior Standing counsel
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated26.03.2018 and the impugned communication dated 04.05.2018 overruling the objection of the petitioner.
2.The dispute pertains to the Assessment year 2011-12 whenthe petitioner was under the Management of Promoters and had itsoffice in Sowcarpet in Chennai. The management of thepetitioner was taken over by a new management from calcutta.The business was apparently carried out in Hydrebad and acommunication was also given to the jurisdictional office atHydrebad indicating the above change of address from Chennai toHyderabad. The return for the Assessment and the consequentialorder under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act were completedby the respondents at Chennai.
3.The impugned notice dated 26.03.2018 was also issued fromChennai. The petitioner has filed the objections which has nowculminated in the impugned order. The impugned notice and theorder is challenged primarily on the ground that the petitionerhas shifted the place of business from Chennai to Hydrebad andtherefore the respondent has no jurisdiction to pass theimpugned order and consequently it is submitted that theimpugned notice dated 26.03.2018 seeking to reopen theassessment was also liable to be quashed.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and therespondent.
5.The impugned order dated 04.05.2018 has been passed by therespondent. It has been passed without furnishing reasoningsfor reopening of the Assessment. Since the furnishing of thereasons for reopening of the Assessment is required, I am of theview the impugned order dated 04.05.2018 passed by therespondent is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the impugnedorder dated 04.05.2018 stands quashed with a direction to therespondent to furnish reasons to the petitioner for reopening ofthe assessment vide impugned notice dated 26.03.2018 to thepetitioner. Respondent is therefore directed to furnish reasonsfor reopening of the assessment vide notice dated 26.03.2018within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. On such reasons being furnished to thepetitioner, the petitioner shall file a reply within a period of30 days thereafter. The respondent shall thereafter pass orderspeaking order in accordance with law within a period of 30 daysthereafter in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin G.K.N.Drive Shafts India Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, 259 ITR19(SC).
6.Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jas
6.Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jas
Notes:-In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for officialpurposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that ispresented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility ofthe advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Income-Tax Officer,Corporate Ward 5(4),121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 600 034.
+2cc to Mr.Akhil Bhansali, Advocate, S.R.No.21327
+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.21323
and
EV(CO)CB(30/06/2021)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.