AADI OZONE DEVELOPERS vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1)

PDF · subscribers
SCA/22759/2022HC GujaratGJHC24072067202222 December 2022Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI,HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Special Civil Application without entering into the merits of the case. The Court noted that the withdrawal would not prejudice the petitioner's right to raise all issues that had been presented before the Court. No specific finding was made on the validity of the reassessment proceedings or the arguments presented by either side. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aadi Ozone Developers, filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1). The respondent authority argued that reassessment was necessary as income allegedly escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, citing statements recorded from Mr. Jigar Trivedi and others. It was also brought to the Court's attention that there was no scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner's counsel subsequently sought to withdraw the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act by the respondent authority is valid and not liable to be curbed at this stage, considering the alleged escaped income based on recorded statements. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition without entering into the merits of the case. Revenue's contention: The respondent authority argued that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was justified due to alleged escaped income, citing recorded statements of Mr. Jigar Trivedi and others. They further pointed out that there was no scrutiny assessment for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, implying a basis for reassessment. The revenue contended that the matter requires adjudication and the reassessment should not be curbed at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/SCA/22759/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22759 of 2022 ========================================================== AADI OZONE DEVELOPERS Versus THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: MS NUPUR D SHAH(10233) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL with DEV D PATEL (3802) for the Respondent ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 22/12/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

Learned senior standing counsel Mr. Varun Patel appeared for the respondent authority. He has also brought the original file. Attempting to point out as to how and in what manner the initiation on the part of respondent authority to reopen the Income-tax assessment is not to be curbed at this stage. He also has brought to the notice of this Court the statement recorded of Mr. Jigar Trivedi and others to urge that the income which is alleged to have escaped in assessment within the meaning of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act would require adjudication. C/SCA/22759/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/12/2022 It is further pointed out to this Court on earlier occasion that in A.Y.2018-2019 there had been no scrutiny assessment.

At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition. Without entering into the merits, we have permitted to withdraw.

This will not come in the way of the petitioner in raising all issues which have been raised before this Court. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (MAUNA M. BHATT, J) NAIR SMITA V.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →