M/S PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL S vs. U O I

PDF · subscribers
ITA/49/2000HC RajasthanRJHC02009391200025 July 20175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Without entering into the merits of the case, the Court decided to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. This decision was made in view of the handwriting expert's report received by the High Court. The report indicated that the skill of the writer of disputed writings marked as Q1 was different from that of Q2 and Q3, suggesting different authorship. Furthermore, the report revealed that the original digits '143(3)' in disputed portion Q3 had been altered to '143(1)' through overwriting. The Court directed that the handwriting expert's report and original documents be handed over to the Tribunal, which would then consider the matter in the changed scenario and decide on merits.

What were the facts?

These are three appeals filed by M/s Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeals involve common questions of law and fact. The High Court had initially admitted appeals without framing substantial questions of law but later framed three questions concerning the nature of an assessment order dated March 20, 1989 (whether it was under Section 143(1) or 143(3)), the validity of proceedings under Section 147/148 in light of the assessment order controversy, and whether these proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 147 proviso or covered by Section 149(1)(b)(ii). A handwriting expert's report was obtained regarding documents related to the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated March 20, 1989, in Form ITNS 150-B, issued after notice under Section 143(2), is an order under Section 143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or merely a calculation sheet? 2. Whether proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 have been validly issued, considering the controversy surrounding the assessment order dated March 20, 1989? 3. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 are barred by limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 147 or are covered by Section 149(1)(b)(ii) of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee is challenging the ITAT's order. The specific arguments made by the assessee are not detailed in the provided text, but the framed questions indicate their challenge pertains to the validity and nature of assessment and reassessment proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue is the respondent. Their arguments are not explicitly stated, but they would likely defend the ITAT's order and the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 147,Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR (1) D.B. Income Tax No.49/2000 M/s Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited, Road No. 6 V.K.I. Area, Jaipur- through the Company Secretary Shri O.P. Maheshwari. ...Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, ‘C’ Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Jaipur. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, Jaipur. ...Respondents (2) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.16/2008 M/s Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited, Road No. 6 V.K.I. Area, Jaipur- through its Director Shri Praveen Maheshwari, son of Late Shri P.C. Maheshwari. ...Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, ‘C’ Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Rajasthan Chamber Bhawan, M.I. Road, Jaipur. ...Respondents

(2 of 5) [ITA-49/2000]

(3) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.11/2001 M/s Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited, Road No. 6 V.K.I. Area, Jaipur- through the Managing Director Shri P.C. Maheshwari. ...Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, ‘C’ Scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Assessment (Special Range-II) Jaipur. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench, Jaipur. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 25/07/2017 1. In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant have assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

(3 of 5) [ITA-49/2000]

3.

While admitting the appeal no.49/2000 and 11/2001, this court had not framed any substantial question of law. However, subsequently vide order dt. 1.2.2017 this court framed following substantial question of law:- “1.Whether the order (Annexure-3) framed in Form ITNS 150-B said to have been passed under section 143(3) after issue of notice under section 143(2) and consequent to hearing of the matter on 15/3/89 is really an order under section 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act or is it not an order but merely a calculation sheet? 2. Whether proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 have in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case been validly issued particularly in view of the controversy relating to the assessment order dt. 20/3/89 having been passed under section 143(1) or 143(3). 3. Whether the proceedings initiated under section 147/148 are barred by limitation prescribed by the proviso to section 147 or are covered by the provisions contained in section 149(1) (b) (ii) of the Act.?” 3.1 However, since the order which was produced by Mr. Mathur seems to be passed subsequently, we thought it proper to obtain report of handwriting expert which has come on 13.7.2017 and thereafter following order was passed:- “The report of the handwriting expert has been received which was open in the presence of counsel namely Mr. Kasliwal and Mr. R.B. Mathur. Pursuant to the order of the Court, both the documents which are sent for handwriting expert, the following expert report is received. “ DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES DISPUTED: Q1 to Q3 Blue enclosed stamped and marked writings in ballpen on original Form dt.

(4 of 5) [ITA-49/2000]

20.03.1989 of Income Tax/Wealth Tax/Gift Tax/Estate Duty/Penalty/Fine/Composition Fees computation Form. ……..One sheet and extra one sheet PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION Examination of interpolation and written subsequently. RESULT OF EXAMINATION As a result of very careful and through scientific examination of the documents referred to overleaf with the help of the scientific aids available in the division using U.V., I.R., Lumi I.R. at various emission and excited wave lengths of lights, it has been observed that:- (1) The skill of writer of blue enclosed disputed writings marked as Q1 is different with the skill of writer of blue enclosed disputed writings marked as Q2, Q3; which indicates the different authorship of disputed writings marked as Q1 and Q2, Q3. (2) Ultra violet light examination reveal that; the fluorescence of ink of blue enclosed disputed writings marked as Q1 is different with the fluorescence of ink of blue enclosed disputed writings marked as Q2,Q3; indicating different chemical nature of the ink. (3) In disputed portion marked as Q3; at Sr. no. 6, there are marks of overwriting at digit “1”. Infra red light examination show that; the original digits 143(3) has been altered to the existing digits 143(1). (4) It has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the queries. Counsel for the parties request for time. List on 25th July, 2017. The documents will be kept in sealed cover by the Court Master till appeal is heard.”

(5 of 5) [ITA-49/2000]

3.2 Keeping in view the interest of both the sides, we are of the opinion that the order of the tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Hence, without entering into merits of the case, for consideration of the matter by the tribunal in view of the hand writing expert report received by this court which will be handed over to the representative of the department through Mr. R.B. Mathur and the representative of Mr. Mathur will collect the original document and the FSL report from the office of this Court and he will hand it over to the tribunal. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the matter is remitted back to the tribunal. It is made clear that we have not decided the matter on merits and only in view of the subsequent development the tribunal will consider the matter in the changed scenario in the light of report of hand writing expert and decide the matter on merits. 6. The appeals stand disposed of. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 1-3.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →