ASHTA LINERS PVT. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10958/2011HC BombayHCBM07048492201114 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 made the rule absolute, setting aside the notice dated March 7, 2011, for reopening the assessment, the order dated December 5, 2011, passed on the assessee's objections, and the order of assessment dated December 30, 2011. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning provided in the companion writ petition (WP No. 10957 of 2011), which had been allowed. As the facts were found to be similar and no separate submissions were urged by either side, the Court applied the same logic. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashta Liners Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur, filed a writ petition challenging the reopening of its assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. The notice for reopening was issued on March 7, 2011, and the reasons were communicated on August 16, 2011. The assessee had raised objections to the reopening. The Revenue was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2. The High Court noted that the facts of this case were similar to a companion writ petition, WP No. 10957 of 2011 (Shriram Foundry Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2), which had been allowed by a judgment delivered on the same day. No separate submissions were made by either party in this case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 7, 2011, for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06, is valid and based on valid reasons, concerning Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the facts of the present case are identical to the companion writ petition (WP No. 10957 of 2011), which was allowed by the Court. Therefore, the same relief should be granted. The assessee did not present separate submissions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present separate submissions, agreeing that the facts were similar to the companion petition. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 wp-10958-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10958 OF 2011 Ashta Liners Pvt.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-10958-2011 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. 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 (Shriram Foundry Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2) which has been allowed by a judgment delivered today. In the present case, the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 is sought to be reopened by a notice dated 7 March 2011. The reasons which have been communicated to the assessee on 16 August 2011 are similar to those in the companion petition. No separate submissions have been urged by either side. 4. For the reasons indicated by the Court while allowing the companion petition, Rule is made absolute by setting aside the notice dated 7 March 2011, the order dated 5 December 2011 passed on the

3 wp-10958-2011 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →