Satish Lallan Mishra v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5856 of 2022 ========================================================== SATISH LALLAN MISHRA VersusINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADV. WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR. M.R.BHATT, SR. ADV. WITH MR. KARAN SANGHANI FOR M R BHATT& CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 01/08/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learnedadvocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned senioradvocate Mr. M. R. Bhatt for M. R. Bhatt & Co. for the respondents –Income Tax authorities. 2.By filling this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, whatis prayed by the petitioner is to set aside notice dated 30.3.2021 issued bythe Income Tax officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inrespect of Assessment Year 2014-2015 stating that for the reasons to believe, the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year underconsideration had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3.In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed Return ofincome on 15.4.2021. The petitioner further requested for supply of thereasons for reopening. On 20.12.2021, the respondents supplied copy ofthe reasons for reopening. 3.1The reasons supplied show that the reopening of the assessment isadverted to by the Income Tax officer on the ground that certain allegedpayment and source of such payment was required to be verified. It wasstated that information received from the DCIT Central Circle - 2(1),Ahmedabad was in connection with the search carried out in case of M/s.Dev group -the third party and it was found that the petitioner advancedcash for the purchase of flat in the scheme floated by the said Dev group.The source of fund and payment to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs needed to beverified, it was stated. 3.2It appears that the petitioner raised objections by his letter dated20.1.2022 wherein various factual and legal submissions were advancedagainst the proposed reassessment notice. It was submitted to the authorities that in view of the grounds stated, the reopening for the year under consideration was not justified. 3.3This court issued notice on 24.3.2022 and granted ad-interim reliefin terms of prayer 7(b) whereby implementation of the impugned noticeand further proceedings in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-2015pursuant to the said notice, were stayed. 4.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the objections raised videapplication dated 20.1.2022 have not been considered at all by therespondent. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that withoutconsidering the case of the respondent and its defence, the authorities willproceed to frame the assessment pursuant to the impugned notice. It wassubmitted that great prejudice would occur if the objections of thepetitioner are not considered and disposed of in accordance with law bythe assessing authority. 5.In the facts of the case, when the objections of the petitioner arenot considered and are not disposed of, which were given in response tothe notice dated 30.3.2021 under section 148 of the Act in respect ofAssessment Year 2014-2015, it would subserve the interests of justicethat the competent authority of the respondent considers and disposes off the objections submitted by the petitioner. 5.In the facts of the case, when the objections of the petitioner arenot considered and are not disposed of, which were given in response tothe notice dated 30.3.2021 under section 148 of the Act in respect ofAssessment Year 2014-2015, it would subserve the interests of justicethat the competent authority of the respondent considers and disposes off the objections submitted by the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing therespondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the objections of thepetitioner dated 20.1.2021 within six weeks from the date of receipt ofthis order. 6.1It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion onmerits nor has gone into the merits of the case. 7.The petition stands disposed in the above terms. Direct service is permitted. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI/pps (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)