2015 Supreme(Bom) 779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, A.K. MENON, JJ.
Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(2) & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 944 of 2015
Decided On : 06-05-2015
For the Petitioner:Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel with Jitendra Jain, P.C. Tripathi i/b. Atul K. Jasani, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Suresh Kumar, Arvind Pinto, Advocate.
The mandatory precondition of recording satisfaction for reopening the assessment after 4 years under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met for a notice under section 148 to be justified.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act - Notice under section 148 - 1961 - [A.Y. 2007-08] - [Section 10A, 147] - The court found that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 was not justified as the mandatory precondition of recording satisfaction for reopening the assessment after 4 years was not met. The court allowed the Writ Petition and ruled that the notice under section 148 and all steps in furtherance thereof cannot be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition challenges the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reassessment order dated 27th February, 2015. The Petitioner raised objections to the notice, but the Assessing Officer passed an order dismissing the objections. The Petitioner contended that the notice was vitiated as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required by the proviso to section 147.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice under section 148 was not justified as the mandatory precondition of recording satisfaction for reopening the assessment after 4 years was not met. The court allowed the Writ Petition and ruled that the notice under section 148 and all steps in furtherance thereof cannot be sustained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice under section 148 was not justified as the mandatory precondition of recording satisfaction for reopening the assessment after 4 years was not met.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed, and the court ruled that the notice under section 148 and all steps in furtherance thereof cannot be sustained.
(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the IT Act”), copy of which is at Annexure 'A' and the order dated 12th February, 2015 (Annexure 'AB') and reassessment order dated 27th February, 2015 (Annexure 'AC').
2. On the earlier occasion we had extensively heard both sides. We have also heard both sides today. In the light of the agreement and consent of both sides, we dispose of this Writ Petition finally.
3. Rule. Respondents waive service.
4. On 21st April, 2015, we had passed an order inviting the attention of the Respondents to the averments in the Writ Petition and particularly in para 12. Thereafter, we indicated to the Respondents that in view of authoritative pronouncements by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Paints vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. reported in (2008) 296 ITR 90 and in the case of GKN Driveshofts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19, the order passed on 12th February, 2015 rejecting the objections should have been communicated and the Respondents thereafter ought not to have proceeded with for a period of four weeks and in pursuance of the impugned notice. Since the order of assessment dated 27th February, 2015 is assailed on the ground that this direction of the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed, we had called upon the Respondents' Counsel then appearing to take appropriate instructions and inform the Court as to whether that assessment order should be set aside by consent or appropriate corrective steps would be adopted.
5. The matter was placed today for passing orders, because we were not happy with the stand taken by the Respondents in the affidavit in reply. We had also noticed that in several matters the Respondents have been adopting similar course. There could be difficulties in meeting certain deadlines and particularly of 31st March, but that does not justify that in every case the Respondents defy the directions in the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this Court. We could have appreciated a case of genuine difficulty and brought forward fairly and completely, but what we find in this case is that the notice under section 148 of the IT Act is dated 27th March, 2014. That was served on the Petitioner, but the reasons which are said to be recorded, annexed to this notice, came to be furnished to the Petitioner on 29th October, 2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner raised the objections on 12th December, 2014. The order passed by the Respondents, rejecting these objections, is dated 12th February, 2015. The Respondents were obliged to abide by the above directions and not passed an order of assessment for a period of 4 weeks from the date of service of this order rejecting the objections. In the instant case, if that order itself was served on 10th March, 2015, then, this haste in passing an assessment order within four weeks cannot be justified. If the notice is dated 27th March, 2014, then, the period till 27th March, 2015 was enough to conclude the steps and in accordance with law. The Respondents having delayed the proceedings and at their own end, it would not be open for them to justify their conduct and complete disregard to the orders and directions which are binding on them. In such circumstances, we are not in agreement with the contention that the assessment order having now been passed, the Writ Petition should not be entertained and the Petitioner must be relegated to the statutory remedies. We are of the firm opinion that having regard to the factual statements in para 12 of the Writ Petition and there being absolutely no reply thereto in the affidavit in reply, this contention of the Respo