Vinay Pratap Singh v. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Jaipur, Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1711/2006 Vinay Pratap Singh S/o Shri S.b. Singh Proprietor M/s. SilverJewels, 1/202 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Through Power OfAttorney Holder Shri Ashok Singh S/o Shri B.singh. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Jaipur, Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Parinitoo JainFor Respondent(s): Mr.Sandeep Pathak assisted by Ms.Vartika Mehra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 12/03/2024 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL): 1.This petition is filed challenging the notices issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) forAssessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, and the ordersrejecting the objections. 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged inbusiness of export of Silver Jewellery, Precious and Semi-PreciousStones. The returns for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were fileddeclaring income of Rs.2,56,040/-. The case was selected forscrutiny, additions were made and vide order dated 30.03.2004the taxable income was determined as Rs.1,24,87,189/-. Relyingupon enquiries conducted during assessment proceedings forAssessment Year 2001-02. Notice dated 22.06.2004 under Section 148 of the Act for assessment year mentioned above was issued.The petitioner filed returns in pursuance of the notices. On16.12.2005 reasons for re-opening assessment were supplied.Inter alia objection was raised that the additions made inAssessment Year 2001-02 to the tune of Rs.1,16,96,121/- weredeleted by the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) vide orderdated 28.02.2005 and the appeal effect was given by theDepartment. The objections were rejected by the orderscommunicated vide covering letter dated 23.02.2006, hence,present petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the verybasis for issuance of assessment notices no longer exists onacceptance of the appeal. The contention is that the objectionraised was dealt with. 4.Learned counsel for the Department defends the impugnedorders. 5.The Supreme Court in the case of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors. reported in 259 ITRPage 19held that after issuance of notices under Section 148 ofthe Act on filing of the return by the petitioner, the reasons forreopening are to be supplied and the objections filed by theassessee are to be decided by passing the order. 6.For issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act reliancewas placed upon discrepancies noted during assessmentproceedings for Assessment Year 2001-02. 7.It is undisputed fact that substantial additions made forAssessment Year 2001-2002 were deleted in appeal. Whilerejecting the objections in spite of specific objection that the appeal for Assessment Year 2001-02 has been accepted, the samewas not dealt with. Consequently, the impugned orders rejectingthe objections are set aside. The matter is remitted back to therespondent for deciding the objections afresh in accordance withlaw after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8.In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner appear in theoffice of respondent on 15.04.2024 at 11:00 am. 9.During pendency of the petition further proceedings werestayed, to avoid complications till objections are decided, the stayproceedings shall deem to be continued for all intent andpurposes. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Sudeepak/9 Whether Reportable : Yes