Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan, Mr. Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur, JJ
AMIT TAK SON OF SHRI ANIL TAK – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
CW / 12994 / 2020
Order :
1. These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2020.
2. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 13.03.2018 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was director of Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’). The demand against the company under the Act was created for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16. As per case of the department, on failure to recover the amount from the company, proceedings were initiated against the Director under Section 179 of the Act. Hence, the present petition.
4. During the arguments, it is revealed that for assessment year 2015-16, the order creating the demand against the company was set aside by the commissioner under Section 263 of the Act and the matter was remanded.
5. As per the counsel appearing for the department, the appeals pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 of the Company have been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Since much water has flown during the pendency of the petition. One of the order creating the demand was set aside, since common order was passed for all three assessment years, consequently, the impugned order under Section 179 of the Act is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur to decide the issue afresh in view of the subsequent development. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7. It is clarified that setting aside of the order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
8. In order to avoid further delay, let the petitioner personally or through representatives remain present in the office of respondent No.1 on 06.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m.
The court ruled that an order under Section 179 cannot stand if the underlying demand against the company is set aside, necessitating a fresh evaluation by the tax authority.
The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the inadvertent issuance of conflicting assessment orders, leading to the quashing of the impugned assessment order dated 15th June, 2021.
The court held that an assessment officer cannot re-initiate proceedings after a case has been concluded, as it renders the officer functus officio.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the contentions of the petitioner and maintaining consistency in decisions under the Income Tax Act.
An assessment order passed without compliance with procedural requirements of the Income Tax Act is invalid and must be set aside.
The court emphasized that differing circumstances in tax cases must be individually assessed, particularly regarding claims for interest on delayed refunds.
An assessment order finalized without allowing objections to a draft constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rendering the order invalid.
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
