VIJAY R. JASUJA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE -2, PUNE AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/11686/2016HC BombayHCBM01041624201626 October 2016Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. GUPTE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 148,Section 153

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.

2.

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

3.

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

5.

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.

6.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →