Today tax law The High Court justice k ravichandrababu –is of the opinion that the assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
16Shares
A.O. bound to dispose off objections filed by assessee by passing a speaking order
- Prapti Raut
- | Income Tax – Judiciary
- 15 May 2020
- 600 Views
- 0 comment
Case Law Details
Case Name : Redington India Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)Appeal Number : W.P. No. 32616 of 2018Date of Judgement/Order : 30/09/2019Related Assessment Year : 2011-12Courts : All High Courts (5540) Madras High Court (467) Download Judgment/Order
Redington India Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether the Assessing officer is correct in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening the assessment without passing speaking order?
The High Court is of the opinion that the assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
Considering the fact that the Order dt. 9-10-2018 rejecting the objections is not a speaking order, High Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the respondent for passing a speaking order, however, by not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the respective parties including the limitation issue.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned Order dt. 9-10-2018 alone is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer to pass a speaking order on the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act dt. 30-3-2018 and the consequential Order dt. 9-10-2018 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening the assessment. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to drop the re-assessment proceedings. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12.
2. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows:
It is engaged in the business of distribution of information technology products, telecom products, consumer durables and after sales services. For the assessment year 2011-12, the petitioner filed its return of income on 29-11-2011 and further a revised return on 30-3-2013. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) dt. 12-8-2013 and notice under section 142(1) dt. 13-2-2015 were issued. The case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) under section 92CA of the Act for computation of Arms Length Price in relation to international transaction. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an order under section 92CA(3) dt. 28-1-2015 suggesting an upward adjustment. The petitioner, through their letter dt. 19-3-2015, informed its proposal to file objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). The respondent passed the draft assessment Order dt. 23-3-2015 under section 143(3) read with section 92CA read with section 144C(1), determining the assessed income by adding the adjustments as suggested by Transfer Pricing Officer and making disallowance under section 14A. As against the addition and disallowance made in the draft assessment order, the petitioner filed their objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. By Order dt. 22-12-2015, the Dispute Resolution Panel directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to delete the upward adjustment in respect of old corporate guarantee and rejected the objections raised by the petitioner in relation to fresh corporate guarantee. The Dispute Resolution Panel sustained the downward adjustment with regard to trade mark fees and the disallowance made under section 14A.
Consequently, the respondent passed a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with 92CA read/writ section 144C(1) on 5-2-2016 determining the total income. Challenging the said final assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its Order dt. 18-10-2016, deleted the adjustment made towards Corporate Guarantee and Trademark license fee and remanded back the issue to consider Section 14A disallowance. The respondent passed the giving effect Order dt. 29-3-2017 allowing the above section 14A disallowance. The survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 12 and 13-12-2017 in the premises of the petitioner. The respondent sought to reopen the assessment under section 147, by issuing notice under section 148 dt. 30-3-2018. The petitioner filed their reply dt. 3-5-2018 informing that the time limit for issuing notice for re-assessment would expire on 31-3-2018, whereas the notice under section 148 was issued on 2-4-2018 and the same was received by the petitioner on 03.04.2018. The respondent vide letter dt. 19-7-2018 furnished the reasons for reopening the assessment. The petitioner, through letter dt. 14-9-2018, submitted their objections against the reasons for reopening. The respondent, however, passed the order on 9-10-2018 rejecting the objections, which is non-speaking.
3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:
It is wrong to state that notice under section 148 was issued on 2-4-2018. On the other hand, it was issued on 30-3-2018, also by email on the very same day. Therefore, the notice was issued within the period of limitation. The reasons were furnished to the petitioner and their objections were also disposed of by the respondent on 9-10-2018. Therefore, the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stipulated in GKN Driveshafts India (P.) Ltd. case (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC) has been complied with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned reopening is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same was issued not only beyond the period of four years but also beyond the period of six years. He further contended that the reply/objections filed by the petitioner to the reasons for reopening were not considered by passing a speaking order. Therefore, he submitted that the respondent has failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts India (P.) Ltd. case.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening were considered and thus, the impugned Order dt. 9-10-2018 rejecting those objections was passed. She further submitted that though it is not stated in so many words, the respondent has stated that the business activities are carried out in India by Redington India P. Ltd. employees on behalf of RDPL, Singapore and that the RDPL has earned profits from India and such conclusion was arrived at based on information and analysis of financial RDPL, Singapore.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. The impugned proceedings is for reopening the assessment for the relevant assessment year 2011-12. A notice dt. 30-3-2018 was issued to the petitioner under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished through proceedings dt. 19-7-2018, which only reads as follows:
“As the assessee failed to furnish the true and correct details of income and expenditure incurred I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”
8. It is seen that on receipt of such reasons, the petitioner has filed their objections in detail on 14-9-2018. The said reasons were rejected/disposed of on 9-10-2018 by passing the following order.
“The notice for reopening the assessment was dispatched by e-mail on 30-3-2018 and by speed post on 31-3-2018.
Further, based on information and analysis of financials of RDPL Singapore, the RDPL has earned profits from India and business activities are carried out in India by Redington India employees on behalf of RDPL.”
9. A bare perusal of the above proceedings would undoubtedly indicate that the respondent, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, has not passed a speaking order and on the other hand, rejected the same with a single line observation as discussed supra.
10. In my considered view, such order of rejection of the objections is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts India (P.) Ltd. case (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC) wherein it is observed as follows:
The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.
11. Considering the fact that the Order dt. 9-10-2018 rejecting the objections is not a speaking order, this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the respondent for passing a speaking order, however, by not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the respective parties including the limitation issue.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned Order dt. 9-10-2018 alone is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the assessing officer to pass a speaking order on the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening. Such order shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since this writ petition is allowed in part only for the purpose of remitting the matter back to the assessing officer to pass a specking order as stated supra, all other questions raised in this writ petition by the petitioner including the limitation are left open to be agitated at appropriate stage, if it is so warranted. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.Tags: high court judgments, Reassessment, Section 147, Section 148 Download Judgment/Order16Shares
More Under Income Tax
Merger control for IRPs: Do acquisitions of distressed firms warrant competition scrutiny?CBDT Instruction No. 1916 will not take away the benefit of explained jewelleryForeign Remittances | Fees for Technical Services | TDS RequirementNon-Resident Analysis and TaxationOrders Passed without Fair Opportunity during Lockdown violates Principle of Natural Justice
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Name *Email *WebsiteComment
Post Comment
Latest Posts
- 40% Discount on our Online GST & Income Tax Course till 17.05.2020
- Merger control for IRPs: Do acquisitions of distressed firms warrant competition scrutiny?
- Recent Legal Issues In GST Refunds
- Valid Return under GST and its Questionnaire
- FM announces Structural reforms across 8 more Sectors
- Atmanirbhar Bharat Part-4: New Horizons of Growth
- How to Prepare for CA final during articleship
- 37 key highlights of Press Conference of FM held on 16.05.2020
- CBDT Instruction No. 1916 will not take away the benefit of explained jewellery
- Case Comment: Commissioner of Central Excise v. Uni Products India Ltd (SC)
Popular Posts
- 40% Discount on our Online GST & Income Tax Course till 17.05.2020
- Rates of Depreciation as Per Income Tax Act, 1961
- Carry Forward and Set Off of Losses with FAQs
- Rates of depreciation as per companies act 2013
- Income Tax audit under section 44AB: FAQs
- E-Filing of ITR – Solution to Problems During Filling & Uploading
- Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): FAQs
- Clubbing of Income under Income Tax Act, 1961 with FAQs
- FAQs on Income from house property
- Analysis of Section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961
- Income tax benefits available to Salaried Persons for A.Y. 2021-22
Featured Posts
- Income Tax Benefits for Individuals & HUFs for A.Y. 2021-22
- Income Tax Benefits to Residents & Indian Companies
- Rates of depreciation as per companies act 2013
- TCS Rate Chart for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22- Updated
- TDS Rate Chart for FY 2020-21 / AY 2021-22 – Updated
- Income Tax audit under section 44AB: FAQs
- Permanent Account Number (PAN)
- Income Tax Provisions applicable to non-residents
- Computation of Income Tax – FAQs & Examples
- Clubbing of Income under Income Tax Act, 1961 with FAQs
Join our newsletter to stay updated on Taxation and Corporate Law.
QUICK LINKS
IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS
CONTACT US
Taxguru Consultancy & Online Publication LLP – 509, Swapna Siddhi, Akurli Road, Near Railway Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101.
022-28855160
Copyright © TaxGuru. All Rights Reserved. Maintained by V2Technosys.com
