Case Law Details
Raj Arivazhagan Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
In the case on hand, the petitioner had raised a specific objection that the proposal for reopening the assessment is liable to be dropped, since there is no finding that there was escapement of income. It was further contended that for the purpose of carrying on verification exercise, reopening cannot be ordered. Though such specific contention was raised, instead of dealing with the same, by passing a speaking order, the first respondent chose to merely inform the assessee that the proceedings have been initiated only with the approval of the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. The first respondent has not at all dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts had specifically held that the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the assessee’s objections by passing a speaking order. In as much as this requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court has not been complied with, the respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s objections by passing a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this view of the matter, I refrain from interfering with the impugned notices. If the assessing officer chooses to reject the petitioner’s objections by passing a speaking order, then, it is open to the petitioner herein to move this Court again. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner in all these four writ petitions is one and the same. The assessment years alone are different. The petitioner is a Doctor by profession. For the aforesaid assessment years, he had filed returns of income. The returns were also accepted. While so, survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the premises of M/s Raj Children Hospital, Ambalpuram, Karaikudi on 11.01.2018. Based on the same, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 14.03.2018 for reopening the assessments. The petitioner filed returns of income in response to the above notice declaring the same total income as in the original returns. On 17.04.2018, the petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent seeking the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments. On 08.05.2018, the first respondent furnished the reasons recorded by him for reopening the assessment. Thereafter, on 13.06.2018, the petitioner
submitted his objections for reopening the assessment on the ground that the reasons recorded do not point any escapement of income but only for verification of certain transactions. In response to the same, the first respondent replied that notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued only after obtaining necessary approval from the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner and hence, the reopening is in accordance with law. Thereupon, the present writ petitions came to be filed questioning the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
