Wtax/979/2021 Of Alm Industries Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And 3 Others

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 979 of 2021 Petitioner :- Alm Industries Limited Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And 3 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Suyash AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel forthe revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the re-assessmentproceeding initiated against the petitioner for the A.Y.2014-15 vide reassessment notice issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred toas the 'Act') dated 31.03.2021 by the DeputyCommissioner Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Muzaffarnagar. 3. Amongst others, it has been submitted by learnedcounsel for the petitioner that detailed reasons to believeclaimed to have been recorded by the petitioner'sassessing authority were never communicated to thepetitioner alongwith the reassessment notice served on31.03.2021. The detailed reasons referred to in the orderdated 10.09.2021 were first communicated alongwith thatcommunication. On this submission, we had called for therecord of the assessing authority. The same has beenproduced today. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties andhaving perused the record, it does transpire that thoughthe communication dated 31.03.2021 did not containdetailed reasons, at present, on a prima facie basis itdoes appear, such reasons were recorded on 23.06.2021.Necessary approval was also sought from and was granted by the Additional Commissioner on 28.03.2021.Thereafter, reassessment notice was issued on31.03.2021. The contention of learned counsel for therevenue is that detailed reasons were uploaded on theportal and were thus available to the petitioner may notconclude the proceedings as undisputedly the assessingauthority served on the petitioner a physical/hard copy ofthe notice through post, that did not contain thosereasons to believe. 5. The objection that had been filed by the petitioner alsoindicates, it had only received the reassessment noticeand the document containing the alleged reasons dated23.06.2021 which only mentioned one line reason being"Source of share application moneys not satisfactorilyexplained." 6. In such facts, it is difficult to accept the contention oflearned counsel for the revenue that the assessingauthority has dealt with the objections as were filed. Oncethe petitioner assessee is shown to have been obstructedfrom raising comprehensive objection on account ofincomplete communication being made to it, it is notpermissible to allow the revenue authority to reject thatobjection and assume jurisdiction on the basis of detailedreasons recorded that were not communicated to thepetitioner assessee till issuance of communication dated10.09.2021. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with thefollowing directions: (i) the order dated 10.09.2021 insofar as it seeks to rejectthe petitioner's objection on assumption of jurisdiction toreassess the petitioner for A.Y. 2014-15 is set aside; (ii) the petitioner shall have two weeks' time from now tofile a detailed objection to the reasons to believecontained in the order dated 10.09.2021; (iii) upon such objection filed, the assessing authority mayfix a short date for personal hearing on the objection,within next two weeks therefrom. 8. Upon hearing the petitioner, assessing authority maythen pass appropriate order on petitioner's objection as tojurisdiction and communicate the same within a furtherperiod of two weeks. 9. The reassessment proceeding, if any, shall abide bythe order to be passed by the assessing authority on theobjection filed by the petitioner, pursuant to this order. 10. The original record has been returned to learnedcounsel for the revenue. Order Date :- 6.12.2021S.Chaurasia