Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Paramount Polymers Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13480 of 2022 & CM Appls. 40983-40984 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to reopening of assessment (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions on merger and prior assessment (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. remand for fresh consideration (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition disposed with liberty to file (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31st July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) along with notice dated 31st July, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent vide the said order sought to justify the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 alleging escapement of income to the tune of Rs.33,67,382/- on account of the erstwhile Company being a non-filer, not considering the fact that the erstwhile Company got amalgamated with the Petitioner vide an order of NCLT dated 8th November, 2017 resulting in the merger of all the transactions entered into by the erstwhile company, including the impugned transactions with the results of the Petitioner Company for the relevant previous year, and was duly disclosed, and offered to tax, and also assessed by the respondent-revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent wrongfully passed the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act ignoring the contentions of the Petitioner that assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act had already been finalized in case of the Petitioner for the relevant assessment year. He further states that the respondents dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Act in case of the erstwhile Company for the assessment year 2018-19 on the same set of facts, thereby contradicting its own stand.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue, accepts notice. On instructions, he states that the respondents-revenue has no objection if the file is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act both dated 31st July, 2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law within four weeks.
7. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with applications stands disposed of.
The court emphasized that existing assessments and company mergers must be considered before reopening tax assessments, supporting fairness in administrative actions.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the contentions of the petitioner and maintaining consistency in decisions under the Income Tax Act.
The court upheld the authority of the Assessing Officer to reassess income under amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, reinforcing that objections can be addressed during reassessment proceedings....
Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated against a non-existent entity and without considering the taxpayer's response, breaching principles of natural justice.
The court established that reopening assessments requires a clear and valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which was not present in this case.
A reassessment order is invalid if it violates natural justice by failing to provide a party the opportunity to respond to a notice before its compliance deadline.
Reassessing without a hearing contravenes natural justice principles; proceedings must ensure opportunities for taxpayer representation.
A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if issued against a non-existent entity, confirming the need for valid recognition of a company's status post-amalgamation.
For a valid reassessment under Income Tax Act, prior recording of reasons for income escapement is mandatory; failure to do so renders the notice void, allowing proceedings on a subsequent properly s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
