Tapan Kumar Sarkar V. Income-tax Department through its National Faceless Assessment Centre and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, ReAC (RU), Jamshedpur and Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre and Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur

WPC/500/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Tapan Kumar Sarkar, the petitioner, who challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The reassessment was based on a notice dated 30th March 2021, which the petitioner argued did not meet the requirements of Section 147 as there was no failure to disclose material facts. The respondents, including various officials from the Income-tax Department, defended the reassessment by citing new information obtained during an inquiry, which contradicted the petitioner's earlier disclosures during the scrutiny assessment. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, after hearing the arguments, decided not to delve into the validity of the reassessment notice in writ jurisdiction but allowed the petitioner to raise all points during the ongoing assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796102 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: KUMAR VAIBHAV
• Keywords: Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Material facts; Reassessment notice; Scrutiny assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 143

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 500 of 2022 Tapan Kumar Sarkar ..… Petitioner Versus 1. Income-tax Department through its National Faceless Assessment Centre, having its office at P.O., P.S. and District Delhi 2. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, ReAC (RU), Jamshedpur, having its office at 47 Circuit House Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. C.H. Area, P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum 3. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, having its office at P.O, P.S. and District Delhi 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur, having its office at 47 Circuit House Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. C.H. Area, P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum 5. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jamshedpur, having its office at 47 Circuit House Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. C.H. Area, P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum ..... Respondents --------- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate --------- 06/ 08.03.2022 Writ petitioner approached this Court on initiation of a proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide notice dated 30th March, 2021 and 26th January, 2022 (Annexures- 6 and 12). The objections preferred by the petitioner to the reassessment notice for the assessment year 2014-15 were rejected by order dated 20th December, 2021 which is also under challenge. Petitioner was earlier subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143 and the assessment order was passed on 29 September, 2016 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The sheet anchor of the challenge is that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30th March, 2021 did not fulfill the ingredients of Section 147 of the Act for reopening of the assessment as there has been no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment year. The ‘reasons for believe’ incorporated in the notice do not fulfill the requirement of Section 147 of the Act for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction and proceed against him. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit pursuant to the order dated 16th February, 2022 defending the reopening of the scrutiny assessment on a specific ground that one Mr. Subhash Kumar Modi has, during enquiry, informed the department that he has never given any money to the petitioner. Petitioner had, during scrutiny assessment, placed before the assessing officer -2- that the entry of Rs.55,00,000/- (fifty five lacs) as cash in his account was received from Mr. Subhash Kumar Modi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed the same very material facts with supporting documents on which this scrutiny assessment order was passed, the department was not entitled to reopen the assessment proceedings under Section 148 read with section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act and that too on the basis of information received during investigation. The respondents cannot add or subtract the reasons which form the ‘reasons for believe’ in the order rejecting the objection of the petitioner, by way of a counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Court is not inclined to enter into the validity and correctness of the proceedings and the ‘reasons for believe’ in writ jurisdiction, petitioner may be allowed to raise all the points of law and facts before the assessing officer in the pending proceedings. 5. We feel inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner since the issue at hand involves determination on mixed question of fact and law which ultimately may affect the outcome of the assessment proceedings. 6. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the assessment proceedings and take all available points of law and facts before the assessing officer which shall be considered in accordance with law. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) sm/pramanik "