M/S.Manoharamma Hotel ... vs Income Tax Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 13336 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13336 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 July, 2022

Madras High Court

M/S.Manoharamma Hotel ... vs Income Tax Officer on 26 July, 2022

                                                                                      W.P.Nos.31790 & 31805 of 2019


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 26.07.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

                                         W.P.Nos.31790 & 31805 of 2019
                                                      and
                       W.M.P.Nos.5005 & 5133 of 2020 and 32044, 32042, 32023, 32020, 32043 &
                                                  32019 of 2019


                     M/s.Manoharamma Hotel Investments Private Limited
                     No.2, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar,
                     Chennai – 600 017.                                        ...Petitioner

                                                     Vs.

                     Income Tax Officer
                     Corporate Ward 4(1),
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                        ...Respondent


                     Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
                     a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent
                     contained in its notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for
                     PAN:AACCM8686M, for the assessment year 2013-14, dated 28.03.2019 and all
                     proceedings in furtherance thereof, including but not limited to the order dated
                     30.09.2019 passed by the Respondent disposing of the Petitioner's objections to
                     the reopening of the income tax assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, and
                     to quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and to consequently forbear the
                     respondent from in any manner reassessing the petitioner's income u/s. 147 of the
                     Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.Surith Parthasarthy

                     1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                          W.P.Nos.31790 & 31805 of 2019


                                              For Respondent : Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arun Kumar
                                                                 Junior Standing Counsel


                                                             ORDER

Heard Mr.SuhrithParhasarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arun Kumar, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

2. One of the primordial points advanced by the petitioner challenging

order dated 30.09.2019 disposing the objections to assumptions to jurisdiction for

reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') is that

the ‘reasons’ on the basis of the reassessment has been effected, have not been

supplied.

3. The procedure for re-assessment has been set out in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer

[2003](259 ITR 19)and the operative portion reads as under:-

“ We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issue, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons with a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticeee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.31790 & 31805 of 2019

above said five assessment years.”

4. In response to the allegation of non-supplying of reasons, learned Junior

Standing Counsel circulates a copy of the reasons along with an acknowledgment

for avowed service of the same upon the petitioner. The acknowledgment

contains an illegible scrawl purporting to be a signature and there is no name of

the recipient mentioned thereunder. Learned Counsel, on instructions would

maintain that no reasons have been received and would also point to subsequent

communications exchanged where the petitioner had reiterated the same

complaint.

5. In the light of the aforesaid positionI think it appropriate, in the interests

of substantial justice, to permit the proceedings for reassessment to resume from