SHARDA EXPORTS V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

SPA/810/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Sharda Exports, a partnership firm, which appealed against the common order passed by a learned Single Judge regarding re-assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The firm had received a re-assessment notice and subsequently engaged in a legal process to contest the re-assessment. The main contention in the appeals was that the findings of the learned Single Judge could prejudice the appellant's case in the re-assessment proceedings. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, after hearing the arguments, decided to direct the Assessing Authority to consider all contentions raised by the appellant and to pass the re-assessment orders without influence from the High Court's previous observations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747142 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: H M BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: PULAK MULLICK
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay condonation; Income Tax; Re-assessment; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 810 of 2019 With Delay Condonation Application No. 12076 of 2019 Sharda Exports ...Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and others ...Respondents AND Special Appeal No. 808 of 2019 With Exemption Application No. 11585 of 2019 Delay Condonation Application No. 12073 of 2019 Sharda Exports ...Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and others ...Respondents AND Special Appeal No. 809 of 2019 With Exemption Application No. 11592 of 2019 Delay Condonation Application No. 12072 of 2019 Sharda Exports ...Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and others ...Respondents AND Special Appeal No. 811 of 2019 With Exemption Application No. 11581 of 2019 Delay Condonation Application No. 12074 of 2019 Sharda Exports ...Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and others ...Respondents 2 AND Special Appeal No. 812 of 2019 With Exemption Application No. 11590 of 2019 Delay Condonation Application No. 12077 of 2019 Sharda Exports ...Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and others ...Respondents Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the appellants in all the Special Appeals. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-Income Tax Department in all the Special Appeals. Dated: 07th November, 2019 Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Applications to condone the delay in preferring these Special Appeals are not opposed and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Applications stand disposed of. Exemption applications are also allowed. 2. These Special Appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 122 of 2013 and batch dated 19.07.2019. The appellant-writ petitioner, a partnership firm, was assessed to tax for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. After the assessment orders were passed, the appellant-writ petitioner received a re-assessment notice, under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, on 17.08.2010. On 15.09.2010, the appellant-writ petitioner sought reasons from the Revenue as to why re-assessment was sought to be undertaken. Thereafter a copy of the reasoned order, passed by the Assessing Authority, was furnished to the appellant-writ petitioner on 08.11.2010. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted their objections to the said order on 14.11.2011, and the same were decided by the 3 Assessing Authority on 22.11.2011. However, no re-assessment order has as yet been passed by the Assessing Authority. 3. Questioning the order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 22.11.2011, the appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Elaborate submissions were put forth on behalf of Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, and a detailed order was passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petitions, by order dated 19.07.2019, on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the present Special Appeals. 4. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, would contend that the learned Single Judge had failed to deal with all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner; the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, on merits, would prejudice the appellant-writ petitioner’s case in the re-assessment proceedings; and the Assessing Authority, while passing the order of re-assessment, would be influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the orders under appeal. 5. Since the complaint before us is that the findings recorded in the order under appeal may influence the decision of the Assessing Authority, while passing a re-assessment order, we asked Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, how was he justified in putting forth his submissions on merits, inviting a finding of this Court on merits, and then complain that the Assessing Authority would be influenced by the findings recorded by this Court. Learned counsel would then state that, instead of adjudicating the appellant-writ petitioner’s claim on merits, it would suffice if the Assessing Authority were directed to deal with all the contentions raised by the appellant-writ petitioner, and pass the re- assessment orders strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any 4 observations made by the learned Single Judge in the orders under appeal. 6. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, has no objection for such an order to be passed. 7. We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of these Special Appeals directing the Assessing Authority to pass the re-assessment order dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellant-writ petitioner, and without being influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge in the orders under appeal. 8. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner, would also submit that, while the appellant-writ petitioner had already filed its reply, they be given the opportunity to file additional submissions during oral hearing of the re-assessment proceedings. 9. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, would submit that, in so far as the Assessment Year 2005-06 is concerned, the last date for passing an Assessment Order would expire tomorrow i.e. on 08.11.2019; and, if the Income Tax Department is directed to give the appellant-writ petitioner an opportunity of an oral hearing, the Assessment Order would be time barred. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would fairly state that the time, to pass a re- assessment order, would expire tomorrow i.e. on 08.11.2019 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 10. Since the appellant-writ petitioner themselves seek an opportunity of an oral hearing, and to put forth their additional submissions before the Assessing Authority, suffice it, in so far as the Assessment Year 2005-06 is concerned, to extend the period for 5 passing the re-assessment order by a further period of eight weeks. The Assessing Authority shall inform the appellant-writ petitioner of the date of oral hearing, and it is open to the appellant-writ petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority and put forth their submissions, both oral and written, before him. 11. The Special Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 08.11.2019. (Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 07.11.2019 07.11.2019 Rahul "