Wp/2983/2019 Of Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 (1) (1) And 2 Others
High Court
15 Feb 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/2983/2019 Of Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 (1) (1) And 2 Others
Date of order
15 Feb 2022
Assessment year(s)
2012-13
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Wp/2983/2019 Of Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 (1) (1) And 2 Others, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2022.02.1712:59:01+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2983 OF 2019
Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd.….Petitioner V/s.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax1(1)(1) and Ors. …Respondents
----
Mr. Porus F. Kaka, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Manish Kanth, Mr. Nitesh Joshi and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED : 15[th] FEBRUARY, 2022
P.C. :
1.Pursuant to earlier orders passed by this court one Mr.KartikKumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 (1)(1) has filedaffidavit dated 31[st] January, 2022. Though we are not entirely happy withthe affidavit, one thing we can cull from the affidavit is that the amount ofRs.1.13 Crores which is alleged in the reasons for re-opening the assessmentas having escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has been considered in the assessment orderfor A.Y. 2012-13.
2.Mr. Kaka submitted that, if that has already been assessedduring the assessment proceedings, how can somebody state that the sameamount has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of theAct.
3.
We are in agreement with Mr. Kaka and Mr. Suresh Kumar also
in fairness agrees with the view expressed by this court.
4.In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause – (a) which reads as under:
(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ ofCertiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of thecase leading to the issue of the impugned notice and passingof the impugned order and after going through the same andexamining the question of legality thereof quash, cancel andset aside the impugned notice dated 30.03.2019 (Exhibit A)and impugned order dated 15.10.2019 (Exhibit C).
5.Petition disposed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
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.