COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AJAY P. PATEL

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1644/2005HC GujaratGJHC24035038200504 December 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, decided to remand the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Court noted that a similar issue was involved in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006, which had already been remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration. Consequently, the High Court directed that these appeals should also be remanded to the ITAT. The ITAT is to consider the issue afresh in light of the aforementioned decision in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006 and the relevant provisions of law. The Tribunal is instructed to render a decision after considering the contentions of both sides, uninfluenced by its earlier observations or those of the High Court. The High Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the matter. The orders impugned were quashed and set aside as the matters were remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration. The questions of law were not answered.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals pertain to assessment years not explicitly stated but relate to ITAT orders dated March 2, 2005, March 17, 2005, and April 12, 2005. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of assessments where notices under Section 143(2) were allegedly issued beyond the prescribed time limit after a return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The High Court admitted these appeals and formulated a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued beyond the period of one year after the return was filed in response to notice under Section 148, the assessment was barred by limitation? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Rahul Cal Chem Pvt Ltd) before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, implies that the assessee argued for the assessment to be time-barred due to the delayed issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the issue raised in the appeals is squarely governed by this Court's decision in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006, dated November 27, 2014. In that case, an identical issue was raised, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Therefore, the Revenue requested a similar remand for the present appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/1638/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1638 of 2005 with TAX APPEAL NO. 1644 of 2005 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2005 with TAX APPEAL NO. 1705 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus RAHUL CAL CHEM PVT LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: Page 1 of 3

O/TAXAP/1638/2005 JUDGMENT MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BS SOPARKAR FOR MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MS MONICA GOHIL FOR MR SM GOHIL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 04/12/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. The Revenue has filed these appeals u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the ITAT) in I.T.A. No.1843/Ahd/2004 dated 02.03.2005, No. 1520/Ahd/2004, dated 17.03.2005, No.1521/Ahd/2004 dated 17.03.2005, No. 1522/Ahd/2004 dated 17.03.2005 and No. 367/Ahd/2004 dated 12.04.2005. 2. While admitting these appeals on 23.08.2006, the following substantial question of law came to be formulated; “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the period of one year after the return was filed in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment was barred by limitation?” 3. Mr. Nitin Mehta learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the question raised in the present Page 2 of 3

O/TAXAP/1638/2005 JUDGMENT appeals is squarely governed by the decision of this Court rendered in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006 on 27.11.2014. wherein identical issue was raised and this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Considering the fact that similar issue was involved in Tax Appeal No. 1124 of 2006 which has already been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, these matters are also remanded to the Tribunal, which shall consider the issue afresh in light of the said decision and the provisions of law and shall render decision, after considering the contentions raised by both the sides. The Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh being uninfluenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in its earlier order as also by this Court. We have not entered into the merits of the matter. With the above observations, the orders impugned are quashed and set aside. As the matters are remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, the questions are not answered. Appeals are allowed accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) divya Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →