Bombay High Court
Mahindra Cie Automotive Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: K.R. Sriram, N. R. Borkar
920-WP-1789-2022.odt
Digitally
signed by
KANCHAN
KANCHAN PRASHANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRASHANT DHURI
DHURI Date:
2022.05.06
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
11:02:43
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2022
Mahindra CIE Automotive Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 7(1)(1) and others ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Nishant Thakkar alongwith Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala instructed by Lumiere
Law Partner for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
.........
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM AND
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : MAY 4, 2022
P.C. :-
1. Prayer (a) of the Petition reads as under :
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or
any other writ order or direction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the
issue of the Impugned Sanction (Exhibit Q), Impugned Notice dated
March 30, 2021 (Exhibit N), the Impugned Scrutiny Notice dated
December 6, 2021 (Exhibit S), passing of the Impugned Order dated
February 14, 2022 (Exhibit V) and subsequent issue of the 142(1) Notice
dated February 14, 2021 (Exhibit W) and after going through the same
and examining the question of legality thereof quash, cancel and set aside
the Impugned Sanction (Exhibit Q), Impugned Notice dated March 30,
2021 (Exhibit N), the Impugned Scrutiny Notice dated December 6, 2021
(Exhibit S), the Impugned Order dated February 14, 2022 (Exhibit V)
and subsequent 142(1) Notice dated February 14, 2021 (Exhibit W)."
Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 4
920-WP-1789-2022.odt
2. Petitioner received a notice dated 30th March, 2021 under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) alleging that Petitioner's
income for A.Y. 2016-2017 has escaped assessment within the meaning of
Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner was provided reasons for re-opening in
which it is stated that Respondents have received information on AIMS module
of ITBA that Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. (MUSCO) has undertaken
certain financial transactions/activities relating to A.Y. 2016-17. Four
transactions have been listed in the reasons. According to Respondents,
MUSCO has not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 and
notwithstanding a notice being sent and an opportunity to explain its stand
within five days being given, MUSCO has not complied with the same. It is
admitted in the reasons recorded that Petitioner has replied to the notice and
has also explained that MUSCO has merged with Petitioner. However, since
the four transactions mentioned in the reasons are still reflected in the PAN of
MUSCO which is no longer existing on that date, there are reasons to believe
that income amounting to Rs.21,41,13,042/- has escaped assessment in the
hands of Petitioner.
3. Petitioner filed its objections to the re-opening and has explained
that the amalgamation took place pursuant to an Order dated 31 st October,
2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and therefore could
Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4
920-WP-1789-2022.odt
not have filed its return of A.Y. 2016-17. It was also brought to the notice of
the Assessing Officer that Petitioner has filed the return incorporating three
transactions mentioned in the reasons and as regards one of the transactions
which relates to sell of immovable property, Petitioner is not even aware as to
what it refers to. These objections were rejected by an Order dated 14 th
February, 2022 which is also impugned in this Petition. Instead of dealing with
these objections, the Assessing Officer has simply stated that Petitioner's
contention that MUSCO has merged with Petitioner and that all these
transactions are reflected in the Petitioner's accounts will be considered at the
time of the assessment proceedings. We do not approve of such a stand being
taken by the Assessing Officer, in as much as this Court has time and again
stated that the Order on objection shall be a detailed one and shall deal with
every submission made by the assessee. In fact, the reason why this check of
filing an objection to re-opening and disposing of the objection is kept is to
avoid time consuming assessment proceedings. If the Assessing Officer is
satisfied from the objections raised that there has been no escapement of
income, he could close the file itself.
4. In the circumstances, the Order of objection dated 14 th February,
2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to dispose the objection
de novo. The matter is remanded to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for
Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 4
920-WP-1789-2022.odt
de novo consideration.
5. Mr. Thakkar stated that the Petitioner does not have any
information regarding the immovable property valued at Rs.21,19,08,000/-.
The JAO is directed to provide details of these transactions to Petitioner within
two weeks of this order being uploaded. Within two weeks thereafter,
Petitioner shall file its fresh objections. On or before 31 st July, 2022 the
objections will be disposed after considering the submissions already filed and
the submissions to be filed. Before disposing the objections, Petitioner shall be
given personal hearing and notice of personal hearing shall be given atleast
seven working days in advance. During the personal hearing, if any further
documents are required to be filed, Petitioner shall be permitted to file those
documents, which shall also be considered in the order to be passed. If the
assessing Officer is going to rely on any order or Judgment of any court or
Tribunal apart from those already referred to in the impugned Order dated
14th February, 2022, a list thereof shall also be provided to Petitioner alongwith
a notice for personal hearing so that Petitioner can deal with/distinguish those
Judgments during personal hearing. Order on objection shall be a reasoned
one dealing with all objections of the Petitioner.
6. Petition disposed off. No order as to costs.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( K.R. SHRIRAM, J. )
Kanchan P Dhuri 4 / 4
