Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1522
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 11189, 11190, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 11196-11197, 11198-11199, 11200-11201, 11202, 11203, 11204, 11205, 11206, 11207, 11208, 11209, 11210, 11211, 11212, 11213, 11214, 11215, 11216, 11217, 11218, 11219, 11220, 11221, 11222, 11223, 11224, 11225, 11226-11228, 11229, 11230 of 2016
Decided On : 08-12-2016
Important Points
Subject
Taxation Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Notice under Section 148 - High Court's Dismissal of Writ Petitions - Remittal of Cases for Decision on Merits
Fact of the Case:
The High Courts dismissed the writ petitions challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons for reopening the assessment, deeming them as not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and remitted the cases to the respective High Courts to decide the writ petitions on merits, emphasizing that it had not made any observations on the merits of the cases and that each case should be examined on its own merits.
Issues: Dismissal of writ petitions challenging notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Ratio Decidendi: The High Courts' dismissal of the writ petitions was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District-I, Calcutta and Another, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). The principle laid down in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) ITR 357 (SC) was found not to apply to these cases.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and stay of reassessment was granted until the disposal of the writ petitions before the High Courts.
For the Appellants : Mr. Nageswar Rao, Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Uday Manaktala, Mr. Jehangir Mistry, K. Parameshwar, Mr. R. Sivaraman, Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Akriti Dewan, Mr. Pramit Saxena, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Mr. M.V. Swaroop, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Suhrith Parthasathy, Ms. Rashmi Nanda Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, Mr. Subramanium Prasad, Mr. P. Ramesh, Mr. V. Vasudevan, Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Mr. B. Ramaswamy, Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Mr. Govind Manoharan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Niharika, Mr. Anuj Sarma, Mr. Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, Mr. Jay Kishor Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Movita, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Akhila, J.
ORDER :
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and all these matters can be disposed of by a short order.
2. We find that the High Courts in all these cases have dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant of assessee herein challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. These writ petitions are dismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District-I, Calcutta and Another, (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). We, thus, set aside the impugned judgments and remit the cases to the respective High Courts to decide the writ petitions on merits.
3. We may make it clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the cases, i.e. the contentions which are raised by the appellant challenging the move of the Income Tax Authorities to re-open the assessment. Each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by this Court in various judgments.
4. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court has referred to the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) ITR 357 (SC). We find that the principle laid down in the said case does not apply to these cases.
5. During the pendency of these appeals, stay of re-assessment was granted, which shall continue till the disposal of the writ petitions before the High Courts.
6. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
