IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2017 M/s. Zuari Global Ltd. Jai Kissan Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa. PAN No. AAACZ0306P Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Aaykar Bhavan, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa. 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Aaykar Bhavan, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa. 3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Aaykar Bhavan, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa. 4. Union of India, Ministry of law, 4th Floor, 'A' Wing, Shashtri Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110 001. Respondents Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kamat and Mr. Arjun Gupta, Advocates for Petitioner. Ms. Amira Razaq, Jr. Standing Counsel for Respondent no. 1-Revenue. Coram :- F. M. REIS, NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date : 19th April, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT(Per F. M. Reis, J.) arp/* WP-276-17 -2- Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner and Ms. Amira Razaq, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no. 1-Revenue. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with consent of learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent, waives service. 3. challenge in above Petition is to Assessment Order passed by Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2016. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner has raised various contentions to dispute correctness of subject Assessment Order and further pointed out that according to him, as Assessing Officer has proceeded to re-open Assessment of Petitioner for year 1999-2000, there is specific bar in terms of proviso of Section 14-A of Income Tax Act to carry out such exercise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this contention was specifically raised by Petitioner before Assessing Officer and in fact there is no discussion nor any reason rendered for failure to examine such contention. Learned Counsel as such submits that as Petitioner is disputing exercise of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in proceeding to pass Assessment Order, this Court can interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and arp/* WP-276-17 -3- 227 of Constitution of India. 5. On other hand, Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Revenue submits that proviso was not satisfied and, as such, according to her, proviso to Section 14A of Income Tax Act would not at all be applicable. Learned Counsel however pointed out that though this aspect has not been expressly dealt with in impugned Assessment Order, nevertheless, Respondent shall file affidavit to that effect to establish non-applicability of said proviso. Learned Counsel further pointed out that impugned Assessment Order also deals with other aspects in connection with assessment of Petitioner which are otherwise seriously disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Revenue relies upon Judgment reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 in case of CIT vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal to bring to our notice observations of Apex Court in said Judgment. Learned Counsel as such pointed out that Petition be rejected. 6. We have considered submissions of learned Counsel and we have also gone through records. fact that submission was advanced based on proviso to Section 14-A of Income Tax Act before Assessing Officer, has not been disputed. We have also perused Assessment Order and we find that this specific contention has not been arp/* WP-276-17 -4- dealt with by Assessing Order whilst passing impugned Assessment Order. provisions to Section 14A of Income Tax Act reads thus : 14 A. (1) For purposes of computing total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. (2) Assessing Officer shall determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part f total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed if Assessing Officer having regard to accounts of assessee is not satisfied with correctness of claim of assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. (3) provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to case where assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass order enhancing assessment or reducing refund already made or otherwise increasing liability of assessee under section 154 for any assessment year beginning on or before 1st arp/* WP-276-17 -5- day of April, 2001. 7. No doubt, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent, disputes applicability of said proviso to case put forward by Petitioner in respect of subject assessment year 1999-2000. But, however, keeping all contentions raised by Respondents with regards to applicability of provisions of Section 14A of Income Tax Act to Petition open, we find it appropriate, in interest of justice, considering that this aspect which was specifically raised and not considered by Assessing Officer whilst passing impugned Assessment Order which goes to root of dispute between parties, to quash and set aside Assessment Order and direct Assessing Officer to pass fresh Assessment Order after hearing parties and dealing with all their contentions in accordance with law. Needless to say, all contentions of both parties on merits are left open. 8. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/* arp/* WP-276-17 Zuari Global Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax Circle-2(1), Panaji / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji / Union of India