Madhu Biyani V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

CW/15837/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Madhu Biyani, the petitioner, who challenged the order dated 04.06.2015 rejecting her objections to the reopening of her income tax assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had initially received a show-cause notice on 21.03.2015 and subsequently filed objections, which were primarily based on the grounds that the proceedings were time-barred and lacked prior approval from the competent authority. The High Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., which mandates that the Assessing Officer must dispose of objections by passing a speaking order. The court found that the Assessing Officer failed to adequately address the petitioner's objections, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remittance of the matter for proper consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795488 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. reported in 259 ITR page 19
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK; KANISHK SINGHAL; ADITYA BOHRA; PRIYANSHI ROONGTA
• Keywords: Objections; Prior approval; Quashing of order; Reopening of case; Show cause notice; Speaking order; Time barred
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15837/2015 Madhu Biyani, Plot No.8, D.K. Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Jaipur, N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Kanishk Singhal Mr. Aditya Bohra Ms. Priyanshi Roongta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order Reportable 08/02/2024 Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 04.06.2015 rejecting the objections filed for reopening of the case under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act of 1961’). 2. The petitioner was issued show-cause notice (for short ‘SCN’) on 21.03.2015 under Section 148 of Act of 1961. The petitioner after filing return and in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. reported in 259 ITR page 19, after getting reasons from the Assessing Officer, filed the objections. (2 of 3) [CW-15837/2015] Mainly two objections were raised, firstly that the proceedings are time barred, secondly that there was no prior approval from the competent authority for issuance of SCN. The objections were rejected vide order dated 04.06.2015, hence the present petition. It would be relevant to note that during pendency of the writ petition, interim order was in operation. 3. Inter alia the grievance raised in the petition that the objection with regard to the proceeding being time barred has not been considered and decided. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. 5. Before proceeding further, relevant para of G.K.N Driveshafts(supra) is quoted below:- “We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, 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. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.” 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that though the objections raised by the petitioner that reassessment proceedings are time barred, has been noted but not considered and decided. The Assessing Officer was duty bound to pass (3 of 3) [CW-15837/2015] speaking order after considering the objections filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /35 "