M/S.V.M. SALGAOCAR SALES INTERNANTIONAL, BY MR. Z.A. BRAGANCA. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MARGAO AND 3 ORS.,

PDF · subscribers
WP/319/2015HC BombayHCBM05000949201507 May 2015Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SANKLECHA,F. M. REIS3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa noted that the issues raised in these three writ petitions were identical to those in W.P.No.321/2015, which had been disposed of by a separate order on the same day. In that connected matter, the Court had set aside the order disposing of objections and directed a fresh disposal by a different officer. Applying the same reasoning, the Court set aside the three orders dated 20/02/2015 that disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reopening notices for Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. The objections were to be disposed of afresh by an officer of the Revenue other than the author of the previous order and the deponent of the affidavit-in-reply. The fresh disposal was to be completed within 10 weeks from the date of the order. The Court also stipulated that no further proceedings would be taken by the Revenue for four weeks from the date of the order disposing of the objections, as per the ruling in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, M/s. V. M. Salgaoncar Sales International, filed three writ petitions before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging reopening notices dated 28/10/2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices sought to reopen assessments for Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. The objections filed by the Petitioner against these notices were disposed of by the Assessing Officer through three separate orders dated 20/02/2015. The Petitioner argued that the issues in these petitions were identical to those in another writ petition, W.P.No.321/2015, which challenged a similar reopening notice for Assessment Year 2008-2009.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders dated 20/02/2015 disposing of the Petitioner's objections to the reopening notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were validly passed. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issues raised in the present petitions were identical to those in W.P.No.321/2015, which had been disposed of by the Court on the same day. The Petitioner relied on the reasoning and outcome of that judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present any specific arguments against the Petitioner's claim regarding the identical nature of the issues. Their primary involvement was through the affidavits filed and the orders passed by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P. No.252/2015
W.P. No.317/2015
W.P. No.319/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

WP252,317&319/15 … 1 … IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 252, 317 AND 319 of 2015

M/s. V. M. Salgaoncar Sales International, a Partnership Firm formed under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its Registered Office at Salgaocar House, Off Dr. Francisco Luis Gomes Road, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa, by Mr. Z. A. Braganca, major in age, Constituted Attorney. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2, Margao, having his office at 3rd Floor, Blessing Pioneer Commercial Complex, Opposite District & Sessions Court, Margao-Goa 403 601. 2. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Margao Range, Margao, having his office at 3rd Floor, Blessing Pioneer Commercial Complex, Opposite District & Sessions Court, Margao-Goa 403 601. 3. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Goa, having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji, Goa 403 001. 4. The Union of India, Through the Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. … Respondents Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.252/2015. Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Gosavi, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.317/2015.

WP252,317&319/15 … 2 … Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.319/2015. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the respondents in all the petitions. CORAM :- F. M. REIS & M. S. SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 7 th May, 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per M. S. Sanklecha, J.) Respondents have filed affidavits-in-reply dated 06/05/2015 in all the three petitions, which are taken on record 2. Rule; returnable forthwith. Ms. Dessai, the learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. At the request of the Counsel, these petitions are taken up for disposal. 3. All these three petitions challenge three reopening notices all dated 28/10/2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen assessment for Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The objection to these impugned notices was disposed of by three separate orders dated 20/02/2015 by the Assessing Officer. 4. It is jointly submitted by the Counsel that the issues raised in this petition are identical to one raised in W.P.No.321/2015 which challenged the notice dated 28/10/2014

WP252,317&319/15 … 3 … seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2008- 2009. We have today by a separate order disposed of W.P.No.321/2015 by setting aside the order dated 20/02/2015 disposing of the objections and placing the matter for fresh disposal by an Officer of the Revenue (other than the author of the order disposing of the objections and deponent of the affidavit-in-reply dated 06/05/2015). 5. Accordingly, the three orders dated 20/02/2015 disposing of the objections are set aside and the objections to the impugned notice for the three Assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are to be disposed of afresh by an Officer of the Revenue other than the author of the order disposing of the objections and the deponent of the affidavit dated 06/05/2015. 6. The objections are to disposed of within 10 weeks from today. Needless to state that no further proceedings will be taken by the Revenue for a period of four weeks from the date of order disposing of the objections as laid down by this Court in Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, reported in 296 ITR 90. 7. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. M. S. SANKLECHA, J. F. M. REIS, J. SMA

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →