The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 12(3)(2) & Ors. v. Marico Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0601-7]

Citation 2020-LL-0601-7
Appellant Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 12(3)(2) & Ors.
Respondent Name Marico Ltd.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/06/2020
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags assessment proceedings • condonation of delay • issuance of notice • change of opinion • reopening of assessment
Bot Summary: In the present matter, the assessment order was passed on Signature Not Verified 30.01.2018 as regards the Assessment Year 2014-15. Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2020.06.03 12:58:36 IST Reason: 2 According to the record, certain queries were raised by the Assessing Officer on 25.09.2017 during the assessment proceedings which were responded to by the Assessee vide letters dated 10.10.2017 and 21.12.2017. After considering said responses, the assessment order was passed on 30.01.2018. Thus we find that the reasons in support of the impugned notice is the very issue in respect of which the Assessing Officer has raised the query dated 25 September 2017 during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner had responded to the same by its letters dated 10 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 justifying its stand. The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. In these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in the present facts. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set-aside.


1 ITEM NO.6 VIRTUAL COURT NO.1 SECTION IX SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.7367/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-08-2019 in WP No.1917/2019 passed by High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3)(2) & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MARICO LTD. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.39392/2020 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 01-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. M.S. Ananth, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Delay condoned. In present matter, assessment order was passed on Signature Not Verified 30.01.2018 as regards Assessment Year 2014-15. Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2020.06.03 12:58:36 IST Reason: 2 According to record, certain queries were raised by Assessing Officer on 25.09.2017 during assessment proceedings which were responded to by Assessee vide letters dated 10.10.2017 and 21.12.2017. After considering said responses, assessment order was passed on 30.01.2018. Subsequently, by notice dated 27.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of Income-Tax Act, matter was sought to be re-opened. While accepting challenge to issuance of notice, High Court in para 12 of its judgment observed as under: 12. Thus we find that reasons in support of impugned notice is very issue in respect of which Assessing Officer has raised query dated 25 September 2017 during assessment proceedings and Petitioner had responded to same by its letters dated 10 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 justifying its stand. non-rejection of explanation in Assessment Order would amount to Assessing Officer accepting view of assessee, thus taking view/forming opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, reasons in support of impugned notice proceed on mere change of opinion and therefore would be completely without jurisdiction in present facts. Accordingly, impugned notice dated 27 March 2019 is quashed and set-aside. In circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in matter. This special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MUKESH NASA) (PRADEEP KUMAR) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 12(3)(2) & Ors. v. Marico Ltd
Report Error