SHANTILAL MANAKCHAND LALWANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/8265/2006HC BombayHCBM01041920200629 January 2007Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the three impugned orders dated November 6, 2006, and the reassessment orders dated December 18, 2006. The Court remitted the matter back to the Tax Recovery Officer for a fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the Tax Recovery Officer had not considered the High Court's judgment in CIT v. Abdul Manan Shah Mohammed and had failed to consider the amendment to Section 45(5)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was effective from April 1, 2004. The Tax Recovery Officer was directed to dispose of the matter within four weeks of receiving the Court's order. If the order was adverse to the petitioner, it was not to be given effect to for four weeks thereafter from the date of service.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shantilal Manakchand Lalwani, challenged three orders passed by the Income Tax Officer for assessment years 1999-00, 2002-01, and 2001-02, all dated November 6, 2006, and served on November 22, 2006. Reassessment orders under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were subsequently passed on December 14, 2006, and served on December 18, 2006. The petitioner received interest income pursuant to court orders, which he contended was not taxable. His objections to the reopening of assessments were rejected. The petitioner also relied on a High Court judgment in CIT v. Abdul Manan Shah Mohammed, which he argued was not considered by the Tax Recovery Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interest income received by the petitioner pursuant to court orders is taxable (a question of law). 2. Whether the reopening of assessments for the assessment years 1999-00, 2002-01, and 2001-02 was valid (a question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the interest income is not taxable. He further contended that his objections to the reopening of assessments were rejected without proper consideration. He relied on the High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Abdul Manan Shah Mohammed (2001) I.T.R. 614, stating it was not considered by the Tax Recovery Officer. The petitioner also pointed out that the Tax Recovery Officer failed to consider the amendment brought into Section 45(5)(c) from April 1, 2004. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents (Income Tax Officer & Ors.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 45(5)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Shantilal Manakchand Lalwani ..Petitioner. V/s. Income Tax Officer & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.R.Bubna for petitioner. Mr.A.N.Kotangale for respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging three orders for the assessment years 1999-00, 2002-01 and 2001-02 and all the aforesaid three orders were passed on 6th November, 2006 and they were served on 22nd November, 2006. Thereafter, it appears that on 14th December, 2006 the reassessment orders were passed and the said reassessment orders were served on the petitioner on 18th December, 2006. 3. These orders have been passed under section 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has received certain interest amount

- = : 2 : = - pursuant to Court orders. According to the petitioner, the said interest is not taxable. The petitioner’s objection with regard to reopening of the assessments for the aforesaid periods were rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice the Judgment our Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax The said Judgment has not been considered by the Tax Recovery Officer. The Tax Recovery Officer has to consider the amendment brought into section 45 (5)(c) which was introduced from 1st April, 2004. 4. Under these circumstances, we quash and set aside the aforesaid three impugned orders dated 6th November, 2006 and the reassement orders dated 18th December, 2006 and remit the matter back to the Tax Recovery Officer for a fresh consideration. 5. The Tax Recovery Officer shall dispose of the same within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of order of this Court. In the event the order were to be adverse to the petitioner, the order shall not be given effect to for a period of 4 weeks thereafter, from the date of service of the order on the petitioner. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.

- = : 3 : = -

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →