Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Assessing Officer (Allahabad High Court)
Undisputedly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as regularly followed by this Court by way of procedural principle, the Court does not directly entertain the challenge to re-assessment proceeding before disposal of the objection filed by the assessee to the initiation of such re-assessment proceeding. Thus the principle enunciated by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer and another, 2003(259) ITR 19 (SC) has been consistently applied by this Court.
In view of above, we consider it proper that the assessee’s objection dated 28.06.2021 filed on 29.06.2021 may be decided by its assessing authority before proceeding to issue any further notice to conduct the re-assessment proceeding.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhya, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Challenge has been raised to the re-assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16 vide notice dated 31st March, 2021.
Undisputedly, the said notice came to be issued by respondent no.1, Assessing Officer, Income Tax, Special Range, Kanpur. In response to that notice, petitioner filed return through e-mode on 26.05.2021. Subsequently, on its further request, the petitioner was supplied the “reasons to believe”, to initiate the re-assessment proceedings by email communication dated 09.06.2021, along with the approval order issued by the Principal Commissioner, under section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
In response to the same, the petitioner has filed its written objection to the initiation of the re-assessment proceeding, vide objection dated 28.06.2021 filed on 29.06.2021 before the respondent no.1. Thus, the re-assessment proceedings are stated to be pending.
Undisputedly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as regularly followed by this Court by way of procedural principle, the Court does not directly entertain the challenge to re-assessment proceeding before disposal of the objection filed by the assessee to the initiation of such re-assessment proceeding. Thus the principle enunciated by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer and another, 2003(259) ITR 19 (SC) has been consistently applied by this Court.
In view of above, we consider it proper that the assessee’s objection dated 28.06.2021 filed on 29.06.2021 may be decided by its assessing authority before proceeding to issue any further notice to conduct the re-assessment proceeding.
Since under the faceless scheme the assessee is not aware of the identity or location of the assessing authority, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;
(i). Within one week from today, the petitioner shall file a physical copy of this order along with covering application before the respondent no.1 to inform him about this order and the compliance to be made.
(ii) Upon such compliance being made by the petitioner, a notice may be issued by the concerned authority within a week thereafter. It may be served on the petitioner fixing a date to decide the objection dated 28.06.2021. At least two weeks notice may be given before the date fixed.
(iii) On the date fixed, the objections may be decided either upon physical hearing or through virtual proceedings, through online mode. The petitioner would be given adequate opportunity of hearing to press his objection and submit its response to queries that may arise.
(iv) Upon such proceeding being complied on the date fixed, a reasoned order may be passed by the authority that has heard the objections and the same may be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks therefrom.
In case the objections are rejected, the re-assessment proceedings may be fixed on any date two weeks after the date of communication of the order dealing with the objections filed by the petitioner.
Needles to add that we have not examined the merit of the challenge which may remain open to be raised at the appropriate stage.
