VIJAY R. JASUJA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE -2, PUNE AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, in view of the joint request by the counsels for the petitioner and the revenue, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated August 26, 2016, which had disposed of the petitioner's objections. The Court directed that the objections would be decided afresh after the petitioner files them upon receiving a copy of the sanction from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax for issuing the reopening notice. The Assessing Officer was to provide the sanction copy within two weeks, and the petitioner was to file objections within two weeks of receipt. The Assessing Officer would then dispose of these objections within six weeks. The Court also clarified that a period of fourteen weeks would be excluded for computing the period of limitation under Section 153 of the Act for passing an assessment order. All contentions were left open. The Court also reiterated, in terms of the order in Asian Paints vs. DCIT 296 ITR 96, that the Assessing Officer would not initiate any reassessment proceedings for a further period of four weeks from the communication of the order disposing of the objections.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Vijay R. Jasuja, challenged a notice dated March 17, 2016, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner also challenged the order dated August 26, 2016, which disposed of his objections to the reopening notice. A key contention was that the Assessing Officer had not obtained prior sanction from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax before issuing the notice. The matter was heard at the admission stage, and both parties requested the petition be disposed of finally.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice dated March 17, 2016, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12 is valid, considering the alleged lack of prior sanction from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reopening notice was invalid because the Assessing Officer had not obtained the necessary sanction from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax before issuing it. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, fairly stated that the Assessing Officer would provide a copy of the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner. The revenue also agreed that the order disposing of the petitioner's objections should be set aside and passed afresh after the petitioner files objections upon receiving the sanction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
wp11686-16.doc sg IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11686 OF 2016
Vijay R. Jasuja .. Petitioner. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Circle2, Pune And Others .. Respondents. …. Mr. Vimal Gutpa, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Arjun Gupta, i/b. Mr. Ashish S. Gabhale, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kotangale, for the Respondents. …. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. DATE : 26 OCTOBER, 2016. P.C.: . At the request of the Counsel, the petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
This petition under Article 226 challenges the notice dated 17 March 2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the Assessment for Assessment Year 201112. Besides the order dated 26 August 2016 disposing of the Petitioner's objections to the impugned reopening notice is also challenged. The Petitioner has inter alia also challenged the fact that no sanction had been obtained by the Assessing Officer from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax before issuing the impugned notice. 1 of 3
wp11686-16.doc
Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel for the Revenue, very fairly states that the Assessing Officer would provide the Petitioner with a copy of the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax for issuing the impugned notice. Mr. Kotangale in unison with the Petitioner's Counsel states that the order dated 26 August 2016 disposing of the Petitioner's objections be set aside as it would be passed afresh on the objections to be filed by the Petitioner after receipt of copy of the sanction of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax from the Assessing Officer. Mr. Kotangale states that the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax would be made available to the Petitioner within two weeks from today. The Petitioner states that he would file his objections, if any, on obtaining a copy of the sanction within a period of two weeks from its receipt. Thereafter, Mr. Kotangale states that the Assessing Officer would dispose of the objections within a period of six weeks on the receipt of the objections. In view of the time of ten weeks taken in the above processes, further period of four weeks aggregating to fourteen weeks would be excluded while computing the period of limitation under Section 153 of the Act to pass an assessment order on the reopening notice dated 17 March 2016. 4. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer would dispose of the objections, if any, filed by the Petitioner within ten weeks from today. It is also reiterated that in terms of this Court's order in Asian Paints vs. DCIT 296 ITR 96, the Assessing Officer would not initiate any reassessment proceedings for a further period of four weeks from the communication of the order disposing of the objections. Therefore, we have provided for exclusion of fourteen weeks to compute the period of limitation to pass an assessment order in terms of Section 153 of the Act. 2 of 3
wp11686-16.doc
In view of the joint request by the Counsel, the impugned order dated 26 August 2016 of the Assessing Officer disposing of the Petitioner's objections to the impugned reopening notice is quashed and set aside. It would be decided afresh on the Petitioner filing its objections to the impugned notice on receipt of copy of the sanction of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to issue the impugned notice. All contentions left open.
Petition is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. (S.C. GUPTE,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026