2022 (3) TMI 534 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Rejection of its objections to a notice for income escaping assessment - HELD THAT - As the respondents states that he does not even have a copy of the petition and moreover, it is trite law that a writ petition would not be maintainable in such circumstances. In our opinion, the nature of order that we propose to pass would not be an infraction of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. We have considered the issue and set aside the impugned orders (Annexures P-5 to P-8) with a direction to the respondent No.1 to redecide the objections filed by the petitioner after considering all the points raised therein. For this purpose, parties through counsel are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 2.3.2022 and on any other date when he requires their presence. He is directed to decide the issue on or before 31.03.2022 and till then the further proceedings on the notice shall remain stayed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of objections to a notice for income escaping assessment.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Rejection of Objections:
- The petitioner, a university set up by an entity called International Foundation for Research and Education (IFRE), challenged the rejection of its objections to a notice for income escaping assessment.
- The petitioner argued that the Foundation, which takes care of all university expenditures and receives all generated income, had filed its returns and been assessed. Despite this, the university received notices and its objections were rejected without considering the Foundation's assessment records.
- The petitioner contended that no income had escaped assessment and requested a review based on all the material provided. The court agreed that all facets and material presented by the petitioner should have been considered.

2. Legal Proceedings:
- The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that a writ petition would not be maintainable due to lack of a copy of the petition.
- The court, however, disagreed with this argument, stating that the proposed order did not violate Supreme Court law. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed respondent No.1 to redecide the objections after considering all points raised by the petitioner.
- Both parties were directed to appear before respondent No.1 on specified dates for the redetermination, with a deadline set for the decision. Further proceedings on the notice were stayed until the issue was resolved.

3. Final Disposition:
- The court disposed of the petition with the aforementioned observations, indicating that the main case had been decided. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also deemed disposed of as a result of the judgment.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning, and the final disposition of the case.