Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-10 v. Haxaware Technologies Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-1219-44]

Citation 2019-LL-1219-44
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-10
Respondent Name Haxaware Technologies Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/12/2019
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags completion of assessment • reopening of assessment • reasons for reopening
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon ble ITAT erred in holding that the reassessment is invalid without appreciating that the reasons were communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 02/07/2012 and the issue raised therein were the reasons for re- opening 1/4 25 ITXA 1126-17.doc 2. The Respondent Assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax, main ground being that the Assessing Officer did not supply reasons in support of the reopening notice. The assessee requested reasons recorded for reopening. The Ld. CIT while considering this ground of appeal on the allegation of assessee that assessee was not supplied reasons of reopening despite requesting time and again, forwarded the objections raised by assessee to the AO and directed to submit his report. The AO filed his report dated 22.09.2014, wherein it was contended that the AR of the assessee was provided copy of reasons recorded during the hearing dated 12.09.2014. The Ld. CIT observed that reasons recorded were never communicated to the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding despite being repeatedly asked by assessee. No separate order for disposing the objection raised by assessee was passed by AO. Thus the Tribunal has confirmed the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner that copy of the reasons were not supplied to the Respondent - Assessee inspite of being asked by the Respondent - Assessee.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Appellant Vs. Haxaware Technologies Ltd. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar, for Appellant. Mr.Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr.Hiten Chande i/b PDS Legal for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 19 DECEMBER, 2019. P. C. : . By this Appeal, appellant has challenged order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A No. 725 of 2015. present Appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08. Appellant Revenue has formulated following substantial question of law for consideration in this Appeal. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in Law, Hon ble ITAT erred in holding that reassessment is invalid without appreciating that reasons were communicated to assessee vide letter dated 02/07/2012 and issue raised therein were reasons for re- opening ? 1/4 25 ITXA 1126-17.doc 2. Respondent Assessee filed return of Income Tax for year 2007-08 on 31 October 2007 declaring total income of Rs.7,52,80,804/-. assessment was completed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30 November 2010. Thereafter it was sought to be reopened under section 147 of Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 1 March 2012 and served on Assessee. Assessee filed his reply on 05 March 2012 stating that return filed on 31 October 2007 be treated as its return in response to notice. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass order. Respondent Assessee filed appeal to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), main ground being that Assessing Officer did not supply reasons in support of reopening notice. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal on ground of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer and on merits. appeal filed by Appellant Revenue to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed by impugned order. Hence, this appeal by Revenue. 3. We have heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for Appellant and Mr.Nishant Thakkar, learned Counsel for Respondent. 4. Tribunal and Commissioner have recorded finding that no reasons in support of notice for reopening were supplied to Respondent - Assessee inspite of they being asked by Respondent - Assessee. After considering material placed 2/4 25 ITXA 1126-17.doc before it Tribunal, observed as under : We have considered rival contentions of Id AR for parties and perused material placed on record. notice u/s 148 dated 01.03.2012 was duly served upon assessee. In reply to notice u/s 148 assessee submitted that return already filed on 31.10.2007 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Act. assessee requested reasons recorded for reopening. AO did not passed any order about reasons demanded by assessee. We have further perused order of reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 18.03.2013, AO has not recorded that reasons of reopening was supplied. Though para no.3 of assessment order contained reference of reply of assessee dated 05.03.2012. Ld. CIT (A) while considering this ground of appeal on allegation of assessee that assessee was not supplied reasons of reopening despite requesting time and again, forwarded objections raised by assessee to AO and directed to submit his report. AO filed his report dated 22.09.2014, wherein it was contended that AR of assessee was provided copy of reasons recorded during hearing dated 12.09.2014 (during remand proceedings). Ld. CIT (A) observed that reasons recorded were never communicated to assessee during course of assessment proceeding despite being repeatedly asked by assessee. No separate order for disposing objection raised by assessee was passed by AO. Thus Tribunal has confirmed factual finding recorded by Commissioner that copy of reasons were not supplied to Respondent - Assessee inspite of being asked by Respondent - Assessee. Nothing is pointed out how this position is incorrect. Even on merits, Tribunal found that reasons were incorrect as they were not pertaining to year under consideration. 5. Once it is established from record and concurrently held by both Commissioner and Tribunal that copy of reasons 3/4 25 ITXA 1126-17.doc was given to Respondent Assessee in support of notice for reopening, view taken that reopening of assessment was without jurisdiction, cannot be faulted with. Learned Counsel for Respondent - Assessee has placed on record decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. reported in (2012) 21 taxmann.com.53(Bombay). It is held by Division Bench that if reasons for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked, are not supplied and supplied only after completion of assessment, order of reassessment cannot be upheld. This dicta directly applies to present case. 6. In these circumstances, question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Appeal is dismissed. [M. S. KARNIK, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.] Digitally Urmila signed by Urmila P. Ingle Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-10 v. Haxaware Technologies Ltd
Report Error