SANDEEP STOCKS PVT LTD V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANR

CW/7463/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who sought to quash a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The notice was challenged due to the failure of the Income Tax Department to provide the material and reasons for re-opening the assessment, despite the petitioner's requests. The Supreme Court's decision in Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and the High Court's decision in Micro Marbles Pvt. Limited vs. Office of Income Tax Officer were cited, which established the requirement for the department to supply reasons and material to the assessee and to decide objections with a reasoned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756307 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors., Micro Marbles Pvt. Limited Vs. Office of Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK; AKSHAY SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; RAJAT SHARMA; AKSHAY SHARMA; SANJAY JHANWAR
• Keywords: Income Tax; Quashing of notice; Re-opening of assessment; Material not supplied; Objections not dealt
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:6180-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7463/2017 Sandeep Stocks Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office At A-40 A, Bajaj Nagar Opposite Gandhinagar Railway Stat, Aa-5, Anita Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302015 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prakul Khurana Mr.Rajat Sharma Mr.Akshay Sharma for Mr.Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak with Mr.Akshay Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 12/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 27.09.2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed returns for the Assessment Year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.15,43,31,590/-. The proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were initiated by issuance of impugned notice. The objections filed by petitioner on 02.02.2017 were disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:6180-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-7463/2017] 3. The grievance raised is that petitioner demanded the material relied upon by the department but neither the needful was done nor this objection was dealt. 4. In the case of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer And Ors. reported in 259 ITR Page 19, the Supreme Court held that the assessee after filing the return in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act shall be supplied reasons for re-opening to which objections could be filed. The Assessing Officer was obligated to decide the objections by passing a reasoned order. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Limited Vs. Office of Income Tax Officer reported in (2023) 457 ITR 569 held that the material referred to and the reasons to believe should be supplied to the assessee. The operative part of the order is quoted below:- “13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that shorn of all other technical aspects which may have been raised before us, the very fact that the material referred to in the “reasons to believe” was not supplied to the petitioner, the entire proceedings for the reopening of the assessment and leading to the consequential assessment stand vitiated in law.” 6. From perusal of the order dated 17.02.2017, it is evident that neither the material asked for was supplied to the petitioner nor the objection demanding the material was dealt with. Consequently, the order dated 17.02.2017 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to decide the objections in accordance with law considering [2025:RJ-JP:6180-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-7463/2017] the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Limited (supra). 7. In order to avoid further delay and complications, let the petitioner through his representative appear in the office of respondent No.2 on 12.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/59 Whether Reportable: Yes "