Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment order under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law since passed without following mandatory procedure of disposal of objections. Accordingly, order of reassessment set aside.
Facts- The 2nd respondent had issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was responded to by the petitioner and an order has been passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, petitioner has received a notice on 31.03.2018 u/s. 148 of the Act by the 2nd respondent proposing to reassess the income of petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12. Petitioner has filed its response to the aforesaid notice objecting to the initiation of proceedings.
The 1st respondent subsequently issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to furnish documents in support of the returns filed by him, to which the petitioner had filed its objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The 1st respondent has passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act re-computing the total income of the petitioner.
Conclusion- In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income-Tax Officer – (2002) 12 Taxmann 963 (SC), it is held that the reasons for issuing notice once communicated and objections received, if the same are not adjudicated upon before reassessment order is passed, then the proceedings of reassessment requires to be set aside.
