Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 1762 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3962 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2465 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Shilp Gravures Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0485 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Vodafone West Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0360 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Dy. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1590 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 0896 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P) Ltd. 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0225 (SC)
REFERRED Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1081 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1513 (Guj-HC) IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ASHUTOSH SHASTRI and J. C. DOSHI JJ. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT R/Special Civil Application No. 18826 of 2021 19 April, 2023 Petitioner by B.S. Soparkar, Advocate, Respondent by Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, Advocate, JUDGMENT *Ashutosh Shastri J.* By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 10-11-2021, at annexure G as well as impugned notice dated 21-3-2021, at annexure A. 2. The brief background of the facts which has led to the filing of this petition is that the petitioner is a limited company and all the shareholders are citizens of India. The petitioner had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, on November 24, 2017, declaring a total loss of Rs. 326,01,10,779, under the normal provisions and book loss of Rs. 6,50,59,839. It is the case of the petitioner that the return of the petitioner was processed and the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under CASS (computer-assisted scrutiny selection) and pursuant to this process, a detailed scrutiny was undertaken. Later on, an assessment order came to be passed on December 20, 2019, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'), accepting the returned loss of the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18, without making any addition or disallowance of any claim of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid circumstance, the respondent issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 21-3-2021, calling upon the petitioner to submit return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, and without prejudice, the petitioner filed its return of income in response to such notice on 17-4-2021 and sought reasons recorded for reopening and approval was obtained under section 151 of the Act. The said request was adhered to and the reasons as well as approval was provided to the petitioner on 17-5-2021. 2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner filed its objections on 24-6-2021, questioning the validity of the step of reopening by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that however, the objections of the petitioner came to be disposed of vide order dated 10-11-2021, and simultaneously on the same day, a notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to supply details in relation to reassessment by 25-11-2021. According to the petitioner, this is a clear violation of guidelines issued by the decision of this court wherein a clear period is prescribed to be given to the petitioner to challenge the notice under section 148 of the Act after the order disposing of the objections is issued. Hence, under the circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order disposing of the objections as indicated above. 3. After considering the submissions made by Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice recorded the submissions in its order dated 14-12-2021, and then while issuing notice directed the authority not to pass final order of assessment without permission of the court and it appears that after completion of the pleadings, the petition has then come up for consideration before this court. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1513 (Guj-HC)

IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI and J. C. DOSHI JJ.

Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

R/Special Civil Application No. 18826 of 2021

19 April, 2023

Petitioner by B.S. Soparkar, Advocate,

Respondent by Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, Advocate,

JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Shastri J.

By way of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 10-11-2021, at annexure G as well as impugned notice dated 21-3-2021, at annexure A.

2. The brief background of the facts which has led to the filing of this petition is that the petitioner is a limited company and all the shareholders are citizens of India. The petitioner had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, on November 24, 2017, declaring a total loss of Rs. 326,01,10,779, under the normal provisions and book loss of Rs. 6,50,59,839. It is the case of the petitioner that the return of the petitioner was processed and the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under CASS (computer-assisted scrutiny selection) and pursuant to this process, a detailed scrutiny was undertaken. Later on, an assessment order came to be passed on December 20, 2019, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'), accepting the returned loss of the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18, without making any addition or disallowance of any claim of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid circumstance, the respondent issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 21-3-2021, calling upon the petitioner to submit return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, and without prejudice, the petitioner filed its return of income in response to such notice on 17-4-2021 and sought reasons recorded for reopening and approval was obtained under section 151 of the Act. The said request was adhered to and the reasons as well as approval was provided to the petitioner on 17-5-2021.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently the petitioner filed its objections on 24-6-2021, questioning the validity of the step of reopening by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that however, the objections of the petitioner came to be disposed of vide order dated 10-11-2021, and simultaneously on the same day, a notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to supply details in relation to reassessment by 25-11-2021. According to the petitioner, this is a clear violation of guidelines issued by the decision of this court wherein a clear period is prescribed to be given to the petitioner to challenge the notice under section 148 of the Act after the order disposing of the objections is issued. Hence, under the circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order disposing of the objections as indicated above.

3. After considering the submissions made by Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice recorded the submissions in its order dated 14-12-2021, and then while issuing notice directed the authority not to pass final order of assessment without permission of the court and it appears that after completion of the pleadings, the petition has then come up for consideration before this court.