OM SYNERGY SPACELINK PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(4)

PDF · subscribers
SCA/4267/2021HC GujaratGJHC24012282202127 July 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the Standing Counsel for the respondent had stated that the objections filed by the petitioner had not been dealt with and were pending. Under these circumstances, the Court directed the respondents to take into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner before proceeding further with the reassessment proceedings. The petition was disposed of subject to this direction. The Court did not decide on the merits of the objections themselves or the validity of the reopening notice, but rather on the procedural lapse of not addressing the objections first. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer's objections to reopening proceedings must be considered before further steps are taken in the reassessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Om Synergy Spacelink Pvt. Ltd., filed a Special Civil Application challenging a Notice dated March 23, 2020, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(4). The petitioner had filed objections to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Despite these objections, the respondent issued a notice under Section 142(1) for reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2013-14. A Coordinate Bench had previously granted ad-interim relief, directing the respondent not to proceed without dealing with the objections. The Court had sought specific instructions on whether the objections were dealt with. The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that the objections were pending consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authority has failed to deal with the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment before proceeding with the reassessment proceedings, as required by law? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The respondent issued a notice under Section 142(1) without considering the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening. The petitioner relied on the previous order granting ad-interim relief. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that the objections filed by the petitioner had not been dealt with and were pending consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/4267/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4267 of 2021 ========================================================== OM SYNERGY SPACELINK PVT. LTD. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(4) ========================================================== Appearance: MR TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI and HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Date : 27/07/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI) 1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Notice dated 23.3.2020 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the respondent No.1. Pending the petition, the petitioner has impleaded the National Faceless Assessment Centre as the party respondent No.2 in the petition. 2. The main grievance raised by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani for the petitioner was that the respondent No.1 without considering the objections filed by the petitioner vide the letter dated 5.1.2021 (Annexure-I) against the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment dated 29.12.2020 (Annexure-H), had issued Notice Page 1 of 3

C/SCA/4267/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 dated 3.2.2021 (Annexure-J colly) under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain information in relation to the reassessment proceedings for the A. Y. 2013-14. 3. The Coordinate Bench, while issuing Notice on 16.4.2021, had granted ad-interim relief directing the respondent No.1 not to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings without dealing with the objections filed by the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 30.6.2021 had directed the learned Standing Counsel Mrs.Mauna Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.1 to take specific instruction as to whether the objections filed by the petitioner against the impugned Notice have been dealt with by the concerned respondent or not. 4. Today, the learned Standing Counsel Mrs.Bhatt has stated that the objections in question filed by the petitioner have not been dealt with by the respondent and they are pending under consideration. 5. Under the circumstances, the present petition is required to be disposed of by directing the respondents to take into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner before proceeding further with the reassessment proceedings and accordingly the same is directed. Page 2 of 3

C/SCA/4267/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2021 6. The petition stands disposed of, subject to the said direction. (BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) (A. C. JOSHI,J) V.V.P. PODUVAL 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 →