SAMIR ANDREA KASLIWAL SON OF, LATE SHRI SANJAY KASLIWAL vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Samir Andrea Kasliwal, through his constituted attorney, filed multiple writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, to the legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mr. Sanjay Kasliwal. The primary contention was the non-supply of reasons for issuing the Section 148 notice, which the petitioner argued was a violation of the Supreme Court's decision in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. The respondents initially contended that the petitioner had not fulfilled the prerequisites for receiving the reasons, specifically by not filing the returns. However, the petitioner later stated that the returns had been filed during the pendency of the petitions.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the statements made by both parties. The Court noted the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-supply of reasons for the Section 148 notice and the respondents' subsequent submission that the reasons would be supplied immediately in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. The operative direction was for the respondents to proceed in pursuance to the notice under Section 148 in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the reasons for issuing the notice or the validity of the reassessment proceedings themselves, as the matter was resolved by the undertaking to supply the reasons. The principle that can be cited is that tax authorities must comply with procedural requirements, including providing reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings, as per established judicial precedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the mandatory requirement of supplying the reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee or their legal heir, as mandated by the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reasons for issuing the Section 148 notice were not supplied, violating the principles laid down in G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra). The petitioner further stated that the returns have been filed during the pendency of the writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The respondents initially submitted that the petitioner had not complied with the pre-requisites of the G.K.N. Driveshafts decision, specifically by not filing the returns, and therefore, the reasons were not supplied. Subsequently, the respondents agreed to consider the matter in light of the law laid down in G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra) and supply the reasons immediately.