Case Law Details
Ganesh Ramesh Chavan Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
The recent judgment in the case of Ganesh Ramesh Chavan Vs Income Tax Officer (ITO) by the Bombay High Court has significant implications for income tax assessments. The court, after hearing the petition, has issued directives to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) regarding the quashing of the assessment order and remanding the matter to the stage of issuing a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petitioner’s Request for Quashing:
- Nagaraj, representing the petitioner, conveyed the client’s instructions to agree to the quashing of the assessment order.
- The court, considering this, decided to remand the matter to the JAO.
2. Documents and Specific Information:
- The JAO is directed to provide the petitioner, within two weeks, with specific information and documents related to the allegation of a cash transaction of Rs.15,27,000/- to Bhagwati Developers and its group.
- This information is crucial for the petitioner to respond effectively to the notice dated 24th May 2023 under Section 142(1) of the Act.
3. Transfer and Disagreement:
- Nagaraj referred to F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-1 dated 31st March 2021, claiming the petitioner’s transfer from the Faceless Assessment Unit to JAO.
- Disagreement arose with Mr. Gajra, who cited the Notification dated 29th March 2022. Eventually, it was agreed that the JAO could handle the matter.
4. Court’s Orders:
- The assessment order dated 29th May 2023 is quashed and set aside.
- JAO instructed to provide specific information and documents within two weeks.
- Petitioner to respond within two weeks of receiving documents.
- The petitioner is allowed to raise all objections to the reopening of the assessment.
- Final order, after a personal hearing, to be passed by the JAO, ensuring a reasoned order by 31st December 2023.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s judgment provides relief to Ganesh Ramesh Chavan, quashing the assessment order and requiring the JAO to furnish crucial information. The court emphasizes a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present objections, setting a deadline for the resolution. This article has provided a comprehensive overview of the case’s background, the court’s directives, and the implications for the parties involved. All consequential proceedings, including demand notices and penalty proceedings, are also quashed and set aside. The detailed analysis sheds light on the legal intricacies, ensuring a nuanced understanding of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. After the Petition was heard for some time, Ms. Nagaraj informs the Court that her instructions are to agree to quashing of the assessment order and the matter be remanded to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) to the stage of issuance of notice dated 24th May 2023 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Ms. Nagaraj also states that the JAO shall provide Petitioner within two weeks from today, the documents/specific information received to allege that Petitioner has paid cash of Rs.15,27,000/- to one Bhagwati Developers and its group. Mr. Gajra states that within two weeks of receiving those documents, he would supplement the response submitted to the notice dated 24th May 2023 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.
2. Ms. Nagraj also submitted that in view of the F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-1 dated 31st March 2021, Petitioner’s transferred from the Faceless Assessment Unit to JAO. Though Gajra does not agree with Ms. Nagaraj, because according Gajra, the Notification dated 29th March 2022 which is annexed Exhibit ‘M’ to Petition shall prevail, on instructions, agrees matter could be disposed by the JAO.
3. In view of the above, we pass the following order:
(a) The assessment order dated 29th May 2023 is quashed and set aside.
(b) Within two weeks from today, the JAO shall provide to Petitioner the specific information as well as documents forming part of the specific information relied upon to issue the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act to Petitioner.
(c) Within two weeks of receiving the documents, Petitioner shall file a further response to the notice dated 24th May 2023 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.
(d) Petitioner may raise all grounds that he has even to object the reopening of the assessment.
(e) Final order shall be passed after giving a personal hearing to Petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast five working days in advance.
(f) The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Petitioner.
(g) The JAO shall dispose the matter on or before 31st December 2023.
(h) Petition disposed. No order as to costs.
4. We have not made any observations on the merits of the matter.
5. In view of the above, all consequential proceedings including demand notice/penalty proceedings are also quashed and set aside.
