Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore

Jeans Knit Private Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 8 December 2016 · Citation: (2017) 291 CurTR 13 : (2017) 390 ITR 10

HON’BLE JUDGES

Mr. A.K. Sikri and Mr. Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 133 · Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 148

RESULT

Allowed

CASE NUMBER

Civil Appeal No(s). 11189 of 2016 with C.A. No. 11190 of 2016, C.A. No. 11191 of 2016, C.A. No. 11192 of 2016, C.A. No. 11193 of 2016, C.A. No. 11194 of 2016, C.A. No. 11195 of 2016, C.A. No. 11196-11197 of 2016, C.A. No. 11198-11199 of 2016, C.A. No. 112

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 300 words

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and all these matters can be disposed of by a short order.

We find that the High Courts in all these cases have dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant of assessee herein challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. These writ petitions are dimsissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]. We, thus, set aside the impugned judgments and remit the cases to the respective High Courts to decide the writ petitions on merits.

We may make it clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the cases, i.e. the contentions which are raised by the appellant challenging the move of the Income Tax Authorities to re-open the assessment. Each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by this Court in various judgments.

We are conscious of the fact that the High Court has referred to the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, [(2013) ITR 357 (SC)]. We find that the principle laid down in the said case does not apply to these cases.

During the pendency of these appeals, stay of re-assessment was granted, which shall continue till the disposal of the writ petitions before the High Courts.

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

COUNSEL

Mr. Nageswar Rao, Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Uday Manaktala, Mr. Jehangir Mistry, Senior Advocate, K. Parameshwar, Mr. R. Sivaraman, Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Akriti Dewan, Mr. Pramit Saxena, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Mr. M.V. Swaroop, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Suhrith Parthasathy, Ms. Rashmi Nanda Kumar, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, Mr. Subramanium Prasad, Senior Advocate, Mr. P. Ramesh, Mr. V. Vasudevan, Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, Mr. B. Ramaswamy, Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Mr. Govind Manoharan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Niharika, Mr. Anuj Sarma, Mr. Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, for M of S.K.J. John and Co., Mr. Mayank Nagi, Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha and Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Movita, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, and Ms. Akhila, J. Advocates, for the Respondent