ATUL NRIPRAJ BARAR,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6706/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Atul Nripraj Barar, the appellant, who challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary contention was the procedural impropriety in the issuance of the notice under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order, which the appellant argued were without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to raise objections against the reopening of the assessment, which is a procedural requirement as established by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28602 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), Asian Paints Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2008] 296 ITR 90(Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL; NEHA PARANJPE; ARS
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6706/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 ATUL NRIPRAJ BARAR 6th Floor, Barar House 239, A.R. Street Stationery Market Mumbai - 400003 [PAN: AABPB4988P] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward – 17(1)(2), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 30/09/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”], pertaining to AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has challenged the re-opening u/s 147 of the Act and has also challenged the merits of the additions made. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds:- “1. The Ld. A.O. failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) before initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thus, the notice dated 30.03.2017 issued under section 148 of the Act and the subsequent assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. The Ld.A.O. is not justified to proceed with the reassessments proceedings without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to raise the objections to the reasons recorded to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act. This action on the part of the Ld.A.O. is in contravention of the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble I.T.A. No. 6706/Mum/2024 2 Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (Supra). Thus, the notice under section 148 of the Act and the subsequent reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act are bad in law and without jurisdiction and the same needs to be quashed.” 3. Since the additional grounds raised, go to the root of the matter, we decide to adjudicate it first. 4. Facts on record show that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30/03/2017 and the copy of the reasons recorded were provided to the assessee on 23/08/2017. On 23/08/2017 itself, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and on the very same date, questionnaire u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served upon the assessee. 5. The above facts show that no opportunity was given to the assessee to raise objections for reopening the assessment. This is in contradiction of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “……the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax [2008] 296 ITR 90(Bom), has held that “the assessee must be given a reasonable period of about four weeks to take any remedial course of action should the assessee’s objections to the reopening be rejected by the revenue.” 6. Facts on record show that the AO never gave any opportunity to raise objections before proceeding with the assessment proceedings. 7. In the interest of justice and fairplay and in light of the decision discussed hereinabove, we remit the matter to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to raise objections qua the reopening of the assessment I.T.A. No. 6706/Mum/2024 3 and the AO is directed to dispose off the objections first and decide the issues afresh accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 25th March, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/03/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "