JAI PAUL S/O INDERJEET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, PHAGWARA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23198/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084028201330 October 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned order dated July 5, 2013, was factually incorrect, as it was admitted by the counsel for the revenue that the petitioner had filed a return on July 13, 2006. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the petitioner's objections afresh and in accordance with the law. The Court did not explicitly decide whether the reasons for re-assessment were valid, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jai Paul, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh challenging a show-cause notice for re-assessment dated March 26, 2013, and an order dated July 5, 2013, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Phagwara. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings without valid reasons and that the impugned order erroneously stated that the petitioner had not filed any return. The petitioner asserted that he had filed his return on July 13, 2006. The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that the petitioner had indeed filed a return on July 13, 2006, but argued that this was an inadvertent error and that the Assessing Officer had recorded requisite reasons before issuing the show-cause notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed on the ground that no valid reasons were assigned by the Assessing Officer for their initiation? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The Assessing Officer failed to assign any valid reasons for initiating re-assessment proceedings, rendering the impugned notice and order null and void. The impugned order also contained a factually incorrect finding that the assessee did not file any return, whereas the return was filed on July 13, 2006. Therefore, the order rejecting objections was based on erroneous consideration of facts. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the petitioner filed a return on July 13, 2006, but argued that this was an inadvertent error. They further submitted that requisite reasons, as provided by law, were recorded by the Assessing Officer before serving the show-cause notice, and thus the writ petition should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.23198 of 2013. Decided on:-October 30, 2013. Jai Paul.

.........Petitioner.

Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Phagwara. ...........Respondent. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.

***** Present:- Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of impugned notice dated 26.3.2013 and order dated 5.7.2013. The petitioner, in essence, challenges show-cause notice for re- assessment issued under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and dismissal of his objections raising a plea of illegal assumption of jurisdiction.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that no reasons much less any valid reason has been assigned by the Assessing Officer, while initiating proceedings of re-assessment. The impugned order is, therefore, null and void and may be set aside. It is further submitted that the impugned order contains a Yag Dutt 2013.11.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- categoric finding that the assessee did not file any return. The finding is factually incorrect as the assessee filed his return on 13.7.2006. It is submitted that as the impugned order rejecting the objections is based on an erroneous consideration of facts, the impugned show cause notice as well as order may be quashed.

Counsel for the revenue fairly concedes, after perusal of the record and upon instructions from S.P.Singh, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Phagwara, that the assessee filed a return on 13.7.2006 but submits that this error is inadvertent and as requisite reasons, as provided by law have been recorded by the Assessing Officer before serving show cause notice upon the petitioner, the writ petition may be dismissed.

We have heard counsel for the parties and as it is admitted by counsel for the revenue that the petitioner filed a return on 13.7.2006, hold that the impugned order is factually incorrect. The writ petition is allowed, order dated 5.7.2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to decide the objections afresh and in accordance with law.

(Rajive Bhalla) Judge

(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge October 30, 2013 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.11.11 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →