SHRIRAM FOUNDRY LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10959/2011HC BombayHCBM07048505201114 March 2012Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by consent of both parties, allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those in a companion writ petition which had been allowed by a judgment delivered on the same day. Consequently, for the reasons stated in the judgment allowing the companion petition, the Rule was made absolute. The notice dated March 7, 2011, issued under Section 148, the order dated December 9, 2011, passed on the assessee's objections, and the assessment order dated December 30, 2011, were all set aside. There was no order as to costs. The specific reasoning from the companion petition was not detailed in this judgment, but the outcome was a complete setting aside of the reopening proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shriram Foundry Ltd, Kolhapur, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. The reopening was initiated by a notice dated March 7, 2011, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also challenged the order dated December 9, 2011, passed on their objections to the reopening, and the subsequent assessment order dated December 30, 2011. The counsel for the petitioner and the Revenue agreed that the facts of this case were identical to those in a companion writ petition (Writ Petition No. 10957 of 2011) filed by the same assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 7, 2011, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 was valid? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the reopening was based on similar facts as in a companion writ petition which was allowed by the Court. Revenue's contention: The Revenue agreed that the facts were similar to the companion writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 wp-10959-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10959 OF 2011 Shriram Foundry Ltd, Kolhapur ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mihir C. Naniwadekar for petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta for respondent.

CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD &

M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.

March 14, 2012. P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent the petition is taken up for final

2 wp-10959-2011 hearing. 2. Leave to amend in terms of the draft amendment tendered, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Amendment may be carried out forthwith. Verification dispensed with. 3. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has questioned the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 by notice dated 7 March 2011. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue are agreed that the facts of the present case are similar to those in companion Writ Petition No.10957 of 2011 filed by the assessee which has been allowed by a judgment delivered today. 4A. For the reasons indicated by the Court while allowing companion petition, Rule is made absolute by setting aside the notice dated 7 March 2011 issued under Section 148, the order dated 9

3 wp-10959-2011 December 2011 passed on the objections raised by the assessee and the order of assessment dated 30 December 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →