Uday S. Jagtap 1631-16-WP-903=.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1631 OF 2019 Menck GMBH .. Petitioner v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Madhur Agarwal I/b Mr. Atul Jasani for appellant Mr. P.C. Chottaray for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & NITIN JAMDAR, J.J. DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2019 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenges order dated 31st October, 2018 passed by respondent no.1 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By impugned order, Assessing Officer respondent no.1 has dropped assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of Act. 2. It is grievance of petitionmer that once Assessing 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 10:22:55 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 1631-16-WP-903=.doc Officer has issued notice for reassessment under Section 147/148 of Act and assessee has not opposed same, then it is not open to Assessing Officer to drop same. This dropping of proceedings, petitioner submits is not permissible. 3. It is agreed position between parties that issue raised herein stands concluded by decision of this Court in case of K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs. Income Tax Officer (2003) 126 Taxman 476 in favour of respondent. In above case, this Court has held that dropping of re assessment proceedings by Assessing Officer under Section 147 of Act, even in absence of assessee challenges notice under Section 147/148 of act, is justified. This Court emphasized that proceedings for re assessment under Section 147 of Act is for benefit of Revenue. 4. However, Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing in support of petition invites our attention to decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vali Brothers, (2005) 149 Taxmann 233 (All.) where different view is taken in 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 10:22:55 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 1631-16-WP-903=.doc Reference from Tribunal. In above case, Court while upholding view of Tribunal, held that once return has been filed pursuant to notice under Section 147/148 of Act, then even if proceedings are dropped, yet assessee is entitled to refund of tax paid in terms of Section 237 of Act. This as return filed on account of reopening of assessment, would be deemed to be return furnished under Section 139 of Act. 5. We note that in present case, we are not concerned with any application for refund made under Section 237 of Act. Admittedly same is time barred and no application to Central Board of Direct Taxes seeking extension of time to file refund application is also made. Therefore, decision of Allahabad High Court may not apply to present facts. This as above decision did not hold that it is required of Assessing Officer to complete reassessment proceedings initiated by him under Section 147/148 of Act in absence of any objection by assessee. 6. However, in any case, as it is admitted position that issue stands concluded by decision of this Court in case of 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 10:22:55 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 1631-16-WP-903=.doc K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag (supra) in favour of Revenue, we are not inclined to entertain petition. 7. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 10:22:55 ::: Menck GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr