VKJ Latest News Update

VKJ Law Offices of Vinay K. Jain Advocates & Solicitors

Writ Court’s intervention is unwarranted where re-assessment proceedings are pending completion: HC

2019-TIOL-1738-HC-DEL-IT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

WP (C) No.8246/2019

ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LTD

Vs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE-1 (2) AND ANR

S Muralidhar & Talwant Singh, JJ

Dated: July 31, 2019

Appellant Rep by: Mr N P Sahni & Mr R Sinha, Advs.
Respondent Rep by: 
Mr Deepak Anand, Sr. Standing Counsel for Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel

Income tax – Writ – Section 148

Keywords – rejection of objection – reasons for reopening

THE assessee company had preferred the present petition challenging reopening of its assessment for A.Y 2012-13 as well as rejection of their objections to the reopening of case.

On Writ, the HC held that,

Whether any writ interference is warranted against reopening, if the reassessment proceedings before Revenue Authorities are still pending completion – NO: HC

++ this Court is not persuaded that at this stage the reopening notice and the order rejecting the objections require to be interfered with. However, it is clarified that all the points urged by the assessee in the present writ petition are left open to be urged before the AO in the reassessment proceedings.

Case disposed of

JUDGEMENT

CM 34235/2019 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 8246/2019 & CM 34234/2019 (stay)

2.The challenge in this petition is to the reopening of the Petitioner’s assessment for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2012-13 by the impugned notice dated 27th March, 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I (2), New Delhi, rejecting the Petitioner’s objections to the reopening of the case.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at some length, the Court is not persuaded that at this stage the impugned notice and the order rejecting the objections require to be interfered with. However, it is clarified that all the points urged by the Petitioner in the present writ petition are left open to be urged before the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) in the reassessment proceedings. Any request by the Petitioner for inspection of the file or copies of documents will be considered by the AO in accordance with law. It is made clear that no observation in this order should be construed as an expression on the merits of the contentions of the parties.

4. The petition is disposed of in the above temrs. Pending application is also disposed of. No costs.

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: