Wp/33960/2018 Of M/S.rr Donnelley India v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.04.2021 W.P.No.33960 of 2018and W.M.P.Nos.39438 of 2018 & 12505 of 2019 M/s.RR Donnelley India Outsource Private Limited,Rep., by its Authorised Signatory,Mr.Jyoti Prosad Bose,43-A, Astron House First Main Road,R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028...Petitioner-vs- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords on the file of the first respondent and quash theimpugned order in ACIT/Corp Circle.5(2)/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018along with the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act inPAN AABCH1990A, in notice number ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009502597(1) dated 28.03.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. The initiation of reopening of assessment proceedings byinvoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as "the IT Act"), dated 03.12.2018 and the noticeissued under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 28.03.2018 for theassessment year 2011-12 are under challenge in the present writpetition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The petitioner has raised a preliminary ground regardingthe limitation as contemplated under the statute by stating thatthe very initiation itself is untenable. Undoubtedly, a noticeunder Section 148 of the IT Act was issued and admittedly, thewrit petitioner has submitted his objections with reference tothe reopening of assessment. 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that none of thegrounds and the objections raised by the petitioner is dealtwith by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Corporate Circle 5(2), Chennai while disposing of theobjections. In other words, proceedings dated 03.12.2018,disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner, is not aspeaking order and therefore, the impugned order is untenable. 4.Perusal of the order impugned dated 03.12.2018 revealsthat the authority competent records the facts as well as thecontentions, but the objection raised by the petitioner has notbeen dealt with, nor findings are given with reference to suchobjections. The authorities competent under the IT Act areexercising the powers of quasi judicial authority and therefore,they are bound to provide reasons for arriving decisions. Inthe absence of any reason, the tenability of the order isquestioned. 5.In the present case, the learned Senior Standing Counselappearing on behalf of the respondents is unable to establishthat the objections submitted by the petitioner has been dealtwith by the first respondent while disposing of the objectionsfiled by the petitioner. Thus, the case on hand is a fit caseto be remanded back for fresh consideration. 6.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the firstrespondent in Proceedings No.ACIT/Corp Circle 5(2)/2018-10,dated 03.12.2018 is quashed and the matter is remanded back tothe first respondent for fresh consideration, based on thematerials available on record and by considering the objectionsraised by the petitioner. The said exercise is directed to bedone by the first respondent within a period of three months'from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is madeclear that the objections raised by the petitioner are to beconsidered and a speaking order is to be passed. The petitioneris also expected to cooperate in the proceedings for the earlydisposal of the objections. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// abr Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 5(2), 121, Mahathma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, 121, Mahathma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.+1 cc to M/s.N.V.Balaji,Advocate Sr.No.23732+1 cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate Sr.No.23209W.P.No.33960 of 2018SR II(CO)KKV/21/06/2021