GLORIOUS VINCOM PVT,LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WPA/22945/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA046012202228 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal found that the petitioner's allegation was substantially correct, as the impugned order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not record any consideration or rejection of the petitioner's objections to the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and all subsequent proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The Tribunal directed that this fresh order should be passed within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. Any further proceedings would depend on the outcome of the order to be passed on the petitioner's objections against the notice under Section 148.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glorious Vincom Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without considering their objection dated March 25, 2022, which was filed after receiving the Assessing Officer's reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that this failure to consider their objections rendered the order and subsequent proceedings bad in law, citing judgments from the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) and this Court in Saroj Jalan Vs. Union of India. The revenue was represented by Mr. Tilak Mitra.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law for failing to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections filed against the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal and bad in law because their objections, filed after receiving the reasons for reassessment, were neither considered nor disposed of by the Assessing Officer. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) and a Calcutta High Court judgment in Saroj Jalan Vs. Union of India to support their claim that such an order is unsustainable. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

28.11.2022. p.b. Sl. No.16. WPA 22945 of 2022 Glorious Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. Binayak Gupta. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Tilak Mitra. ……..for the respondent. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29th March, 2022 relating to assessment year 2016-17 that the same has been passed without considering and disposing the objection of the petitioner dated 25th March, 2022 filed after receiving the recorded reason furnished by the Assessing Officer concerned. Petitioner submits that the aforesaid impugned order and subsequent order and proceedings are bad in law in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) and petitioner also relies on a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Saroj Jalan Vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 33 (Calcutta). On perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, I find that the

2 allegation of the petitioner is substantially correct in the sense that petitioner’s objection to initiation of proceeding under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has neither been considered nor rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and submission of the parties, I am inclined to set aside the aforesaid impugned order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent proceedings thereafter and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representatives within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Any subsequent proceeding in the matter will depend upon the final outcome of the order to be passed on the aforesaid objection of the petitioner against the notice under Section 148 of the Act. With this observation and direction, this writ petition being WPA 22945 of 2022 stands disposed of. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →