VINAY PRATAP SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 JAIP

PDF · subscribers
CW/1711/2006HC RajasthanRJHC02002526200612 March 2024Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's objections were liable to be set aside. The Court noted that it was an undisputed fact that substantial additions made for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were deleted in appeal. While rejecting the objections, the respondent authorities failed to deal with the specific objection raised by the petitioner that the appeal for AY 2001-02 had been accepted. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the respondent (Income Tax Officer) for deciding the objections afresh in accordance with law. The respondent was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court also directed the petitioner to appear on 15.04.2024 at 11:00 am and continued the stay proceedings during the pendency of the fresh decision on objections.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinay Pratap Singh, proprietor of M/s. Silver Jewels, challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04, and the subsequent orders rejecting his objections. The petitioner's business involved exporting silver jewellery and stones. For AY 2001-02, an initial income of Rs. 2,56,040/- was declared, but after scrutiny, the taxable income was determined at Rs. 1,24,87,189/-. Notices for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 were issued on 22.06.2004, based on discrepancies found in AY 2001-02 assessment. The petitioner filed returns, and reasons for reopening were provided on 16.12.2005. A key objection was that additions of Rs. 1,16,96,121/- in AY 2001-02 had been deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.02.2005. The objections were rejected by orders dated 23.02.2006, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are valid, given that the primary basis for reopening (discrepancies in AY 2001-02) was subsequently nullified by the deletion of substantial additions by the Commissioner (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the foundation for issuing the Section 148 notices no longer existed after the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal for AY 2001-02 and deleted the additions. The objections raised by the assessee regarding this crucial point were not adequately dealt with. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department defended the impugned orders, implying that the reopening was justified despite the subsequent appellate order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:12280-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1711/2006 Vinay Pratap Singh S/o Shri S.b. Singh Proprietor M/s. Silver Jewels, 1/202 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ashok Singh S/o Shri B.singh. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Jaipur, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak assisted by Ms.Vartika Mehra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order 12/03/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

1.

This petition is filed challenging the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, and the orders rejecting the objections.

2.

The brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged in business of export of Silver Jewellery, Precious and Semi-Precious Stones. The returns for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were filed declaring income of Rs.2,56,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, additions were made and vide order dated 30.03.2004 the taxable income was determined as Rs.1,24,87,189/-. Relying upon enquiries conducted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2001-02. Notice dated 22.06.2004 under Section

(2 of 3) [CW-1711/2006] 148 of the Act for assessment year mentioned above was issued. The petitioner filed returns in pursuance of the notices. On 16.12.2005 reasons for re-opening assessment were supplied. Inter alia objection was raised that the additions made in Assessment Year 2001-02 to the tune of Rs.1,16,96,121/- were proceedings for Assessment Year 2001-02. 7. It is undisputed fact that substantial additions made for Assessment Year 2001-2002 were deleted in appeal. While rejecting the objections in spite of specific objection that the

(3 of 3) [CW-1711/2006] appeal for Assessment Year 2001-02 has been accepted, the same was not dealt with. Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the objections are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for deciding the objections afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8.

In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner appear in the office of respondent on 15.04.2024 at 11:00 am.

9.

During pendency of the petition further proceedings were stayed, to avoid complications till objections are decided, the stay proceedings shall deem to be continued for all intent and purposes. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Sudeepak/9 Whether Reportable : Yes

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →