RENU SANDEEP JAJODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) THANE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5099/2022HC BombayHCBM01017022202225 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the assessment order dated March 26, 2022, and the consequential demand notice and penalty initiated under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O.) to re-consider the matter and dispose of the petitioner's objections to the reopening on or before June 30, 2022. A personal hearing was to be granted to the petitioner. The notice for personal hearing was to be issued at least seven working days in advance, and if the J.A.O. intended to rely on any High Court or Tribunal orders, a list was to be provided to the petitioner. The J.A.O. was explicitly directed to deal with every objection raised by the petitioner. The time from the lodging of the petition until the disposal of objections was to be excluded for computing the limitation period for assessment proceedings. The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Renu S. Jajodia, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 29, 2021, and an assessment order dated March 26, 2022. The assessment order included an addition of Rs. 69,33,750 under Section 68 of the Act, along with a return of income of Rs. 12,46,600, totaling Rs. 81,80,350. The computation sheet, however, showed a total income after adjustment of Rs. 1,52,74,020. The petitioner contended that her objections to the reopening of assessment were not dealt with, and a personal hearing was not granted. The High Court, with the consent of the respondents, decided to dispose of the petition at that stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the objections filed by the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were properly dealt with by the Assessing Officer? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether a personal hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner before passing the assessment order? Assessee's contentions: - The objections to the reopening of assessment were not dealt with by the Assessing Officer. - A personal hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Revenue's contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68,Section 274,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

940-cwp-5099-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2022 Renu S. Jajodia

… Petitioner V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Thane and ors. … Respondents ---------------- Mr. Satish Mody and Ms Aasifa Khan for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. ----------------

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : APRIL 25, 2022. P.C. 1] Heard Mr. Mody and also considered petition along with documents annexed thereto. With the consent of Mr. Suresh Kumar, we decided to dispose petition at this stage itself. 2] We find that petitioner has filed objections to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Copy of the notice which is dated 29.03.2021 is annexed to the petition. Also annexed to the petition is a copy of assessment order dated 26.03.2022 which is also impugned in this petition. Dinesh Sherla 1/3 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2022.04.25 18:55:36 +0500

940-cwp-5099-22.doc 3] We find that the objections to reopening filed by the petitioner has not been dealt with. Mr. Mody states that even a personal hearing has not been granted to petitioner. We also find in the impugned assessment order dated 26.03.2022, the assessment is completed by adding a sum of Rs.69,33,750 under section 68 of the Act. Added to that is return of income of Rs.12,46,600. That would make a total of Rs.81,80,350. But in the computation sheet annexed to the petition, the total income after adjustment is shown to be Rs.1,52,74,020. Therefore, in our view, it will be appropriate to quash and set aside the assessment order and direct the matter to be re-considered by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (J.A.O), who shall dispose petitioner’s objections to reopening on or before 30.06.2022, after giving a personal hearing to petitioner. Consequently, demand notice dated 26.03.2022 and penalty initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act are also quashed and set aside. 4] The notice for personal hearing shall be issued atleast seven working days in advance. If the J.A.O. wishes to rely on any order or judgment of any High Court or Tribunal, then a list thereof shall be provided to petitioner alongwith the notice of personal hearing so that Dinesh Sherla 2/3

940-cwp-5099-22.doc petitioner may be able to deal with/distinguish those orders/ judgments. 5] The J.A.O. shall, we repeat, shall deal with every objection raised by petitioner and pass the order on objections dealing with every point raised by petitioner. 6] The time from the date of lodging this petition, i.e., 21.04.2022 till disposal and the time granted for disposal of objections is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for completion of the assessment proceeding. 7] However, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 8] Petition disposed accordingly.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Dinesh Sherla 3/3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →