Learning from recently reported judgment in case of M/S. PASARI CASTING AND ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LTD.

[DEVKUMAR KOTHARI]

Case under study:

M/S. PASARI CASTING AND ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LTD., VERSUS INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI., PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMSHEDPUR, ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1, JAMSHEDPUR [2024 (2) TMI 280 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT]

Writ Petition  (WP) instead of appeal:

In this case assesse preferred to choose course of filing a WP in High Court instead of first appeal before CIT (Appeal).

 The case was well prepared to contest on issue of maintainability of WP , although regular remedy of filing an appeal before the CIT(A) was available to the assesse. On reading of the judgement we notice some vital aspects for learning like:

1. Most of concerned authorities have been mentioned as respondents. However, author feels that CBDT could also be made a party to point out working culture and grounds for contesting by way of WP, so that CBDT could be instructed by the Court to issue necessary instructions to the departmental authority.
2. Many grounds were raised in petition originally filed, and thereafter grounds were raised in Interlocutory Application (IA)  to cover omission in original petition  to challenge notice u,s, 148  and order challenging disposal of objections, and also on development during intervening time.  Notice   u.s. 271 rws 271.1.c was challenged in original petition and then order and demand notice for penalty imposed was also challenged by way of IA.
3. In depth studies and exercises have been made to raise most of , if not all,  possible contentions having relevance.

For learning, in depth study of the judgment and judgments referred in this judgments is desirable by authors ,readers of this website.

 Issues in WP

Issues were  validity of notices , orders , demand notices emanating from proceeding for reassessment and consequential orders and demands raised in violation of principal of natural justice.

Relief sought:

Relief sought was for quashing notices, orders and demand notices. A summary from the judgment  is given below for quick understanding:

        2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: -

(a) For quashing the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 bearing no. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042312253(1) whereby an addition of Rs. 15,54,42,417/- has been made to the income of the Petitioner in the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

(b) For quashing the Notice of Demand under Section 156 …..

(c) For quashing the Notice for Penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c)…..

(d) For a direction upon the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2015-2016;

(e) For a declaration that the entire reassessment proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also that the entire reassessment proceedings including the Impugned Order and the consequent Demand and Penalty Notices are in contravention of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, including Sections 144, 144B, 147, 148, 151, 156 and 271(1)(c);

(f) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.

During pendency of this case the petitioner had filed one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6387 of 2022 for amendment of prayer in the main writ application for quashing the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). The said I.A. was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2023.

Subsequently, another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2189 of 2023 was filed for amendment of the prayers for quashing the order disposing objection dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure-10) and also the penalty order dated 28.09.2022 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also for quashing notice of demand dated 28.09.2022 issued by respondent nos. 3/4 under section 156 of the Income Tax Act. The said I.A. was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2023.

Other preparation:

All documents have been read and analysed in depth to point out possible points which were missed by authorities or points wrongly applied by authorities. Different expressions or phrases or wordings used in interconnected documents, notices and orders have been pointed out to make out a case of no application of mind while issue of notices and framing of orders etc.

Concept of importance of dates, specific names, relevant to case and lack of the same have been applied to strengthen the case.

Concept of specific or roving enquiry has been used properly.

Concept of application of mind, and finding and recording of the AO about reason to belief vis a vis mere reliance on documents prepared by others have been made strongly.

Not providing or refusal to provide relevant material has  been forcefully used to establish fact that petitioner was denied an opportunity to file effective and proper objection to reassessment proceedings.

Lack of clarity and specificity of provision has been used in meaningful manner because it was not clear whether statement of Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma is recorded U/s 132(4) or Section 133A.

In view of preparation and representation in this case by  and for the petitioner the honourable High Court was satisfied to hold that WP is maintainable and to allow relief. In this regard  concluding para from the judgment are reproduced below with highlights added for quick understanding , summarisation and catch words etc.:

“19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and several judicial pronouncements in the facts and circumstances of this case we are having no hesitation in holding that in the instant case the belief formed by the Assessing Officer suffers from lack of bona fides, is vague, far-fetched, irrelevant, based on conjecture and surmises and also arbitrary and irrational. Further, since the very initiation of the proceedings is bad in law and attracts jurisdictional issue which goes to the root of the case; thus we are having no hesitation in holding that the writ is maintainable and the judgments cited by the Revenue has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.

20. Having regards to the above, Impugned Notice issued under section 147 dated 31.03.2021, impugned Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022, Notice of Demand dated 31.03.2022 & Notice for Penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2022, Penalty Order & Demand Notice, both dated 28.09.2022 and order disposing of objection dated 16.03.2022, are hereby, quashed and set aside.

21. As a result, the instant writ application is allowed and pending I.A., if any, is also closed.”

Conclusions of author:

The judgment and underlying preparation and representations are good source of learning and improving skills.