Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 254

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Vishal Ashwin Patel – Appellants
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 2201 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 2202 of 2022 with Civil Appeal No. 2203 of 2022
Decided on : 28-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Rajat Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Balbir Singh, ASG Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When Constitution confers on High Courts power to give relief it becomes duty of Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.
(2) Reasons constitute soul of judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to judiciary.

Headnote:
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Reopening of assessment/reassessment proceedings – Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of Income Tax Act has been challenged on a number of grounds – None of grounds raised in writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by High Court on merits – There is no discussion at all on any of grounds raised in writ petitions – Division Bench of High Court has dismissed writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable – Manner in which High Court has dealt with and disposed of writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is not appreciated by Apex Court – When a number of issues/grounds were raised in writ petitions, it was duty cast upon court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order – When Constitution confers on High Courts power to give relief it becomes duty of Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons – High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India was required to have independently considered whether question of reopening of assessment could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not – Impugned orders passed by High Court set aside and matters remanded to Division Bench of High Court for deciding writ petitions afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2 and 5)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Reasoned Judgments/Orders – Reasons constitute soul of judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to judiciary – Though statistics of disposal of cases is important of higher value is intrinsic content of judgment – An order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to parties because it deprives them to know reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. (Paras 2.3 and 2.4)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petitions Nos. 3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019 and 3137/2019, by which Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions in which the appellants herein – original writ petitioners challenged reopening of the assessment/reassessment proceedings, original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must contain narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, legal principles applicable to issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by Counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petitions Nos. 3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019 and 3137/2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions in which the appellants herein - original writ petitioners challenged the reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals.

2. We have heard Shri Devendra Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants and Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue. We have gone through the respective orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. Having gone through the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions, it can be seen that the said orders are cryptic, non-speaking and non-reasoned orders. The order dated 11.01.2022 reads as under: -

"1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition. At the same time, the Assessing Officer who will be different from the officer who had pass the order dated 10th October, 2019 rejecting the objections filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) shall permit petitioner to file further documents and case laws if adviced and also grant a personal hearing before passing the assessment order. The assessment order to be passed within 12 weeks from the date this order is uploaded. Petitioner shall be given atleast seven days advance notice about the date and time of the personal hearing.

2. The Assessing Officer shall deal with all the submissions made by petitioner including those raised in his objections to the re-opening and pass detailed order in accordance with law. "

From the writ petitions produced on record, it appears that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been challenged on a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds raised in the writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable. Except stating that 'we are not inclined to entertain writ petition', nothing further has been stated by the High Court giving reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions.

2.1 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is not appreciated by this Court. When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.

2.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was required to have independently considered whether the question of reopening of the assessment could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not.

2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, in the case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it is observed and held by this Court that the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.

It is further observed in the said decision that an ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 254

Cases Referred (2)