M/S Sharp Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Thru. Director Vipin Mittal vs. Income Tax Department

PDF · subscribers
WP/2244/2015HC Madhya Pradesh24 July 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.K. JAISWAL3 pages
For Petitioner: Pradeep Choudhary
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel, upon being confronted with the departmental reply and note sheets indicating the assessee's representative's signatures acknowledging no objection to reopening and not pressing objections, prayed for withdrawal. The counsel stated that the impugned order was appealable and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Revenue's Senior Counsel opposed the prayer but fairly submitted that the petitioner could challenge the order by filing an appeal. The Tribunal granted the liberty to withdraw and file an appeal, stating that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal and condonation application in accordance with law, and that the Tribunal had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri P.M. Choudhari, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed a deduction of Rs.79,53,563/- claimed under Section 80-IA and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The petitioner's primary contention was that their objections were not decided by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order, rendering it bad in law. The respondent (Revenue) submitted that the assessee had admitted they had no objection to reopening the case and had not pressed their objections after receiving notice under Section 143(2).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law for failure to decide the objections raised by the assessee before passing the order? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer failed to decide their objections prior to passing the impugned order, making the order legally invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee had admitted no objection to the reopening of the case and had not pressed their objections after receiving notice under Section 143(2). They further argued that the reasons for reopening were based on audit objections and a verification of facts, not a mere change of opinion, and that the assessment order was a valid and speaking order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 80-IA,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 Writ Petition No.2244/2015 24.07.2015 Shri P.M. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission.

By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the 25.02.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2007- 08, whereby the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, as claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs.79,53,563/- on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed particulars of the income, and therefore, also directed for initiation of the penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that their objections were not decided by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order, whereas specific objection was raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 2 3. The department along with the reply annexed note sheet (Annexure R/1) dated 06.01.2015 and 25.02.2015 wherein assessee very categorically admit that they had no objection for reopening the case. The department also pointed out that they had recorded reasons for reopening the case on the basis of the objection raised by the Revenue Audit Party and it is not mere a change in opinion, but the Assessing Officer has recorded the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment after verifying the facts and material available on record. In paragraph 10 of the reply, the respondent has very categorically stated that the assessee has not pressed or urged the objections filed by it, after receiving notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, the assessment order dated 25.02.2015 passed under Section 147 read with Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid and speaking order. 4. During the course of arguments, when confronted with the note sheet (Annexure R/1) which bears the signature of the assessee / his representative, who gave appearance on behalf of the assessee on both the dates, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition and submitted that the impugned order dated 25.02.2015 is appealable, and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw 3 this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from today, along with an application for condonation of delay. 5. Shri R.L. Jain, learned Senior Counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer, but very fairly submitted that the petitioner may challenge the impugned order by filing an appeal. 6. Considering the aforesaid, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay. Learned Appellate Authority will decide the appeal including the application for limitation, in accordance with law, if the same is filed within the stipulated period. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, Writ Petition No.2244/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn. (P.K. Jaiswal) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge Judge Pithawe RC

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →