Full Text
Translation output
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21772/2008 (CC No.11258/2008)
M/S. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION PETITIONER(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5313 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.21772/2008 (CC No.11258/2008)
M/S. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT (S)
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
The High Court has held that the Assessing Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the I.T.Act) was impermissible when considered in the background of the materials purportedly placed by the assessee before the Assessing
Officer. What the High Court has done is to require the Assessing Officer to pass a
-2- reasoned order. The High Court was of the view that Tribunal could not have substituted its own reasonings which were required to be recorded by the Assessing
Officer. According to the assessee all relevant aspects were placed for consideration and if the officer did not record reasons, assessee can not be faulted.
We do not think it necessary to interfere at this stage. It goes without saying that when the matter be taken up by the Assessing Officer on remand, it shall be his duty to take into account all the relevant aspects including the materials, if any, already placed by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ......................J.
(Dr.Arijit Pasayat) ......................J.
(Dr.Mukundakam Sharma)
New Delhi, August 25, 2008
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
The High Court has held that the Assessing Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the I.T.Act) was impermissible when considered in the background of the materials purportedly placed by the assessee before the Assessing
Officer. What the High Court has done is to require the Assessing Officer to pass a
-2- reasoned order. The High Court was of the view that Tribunal could not have substituted its own reasonings which were required to be recorded by the Assessing
Officer. According to the assessee all relevant aspects were placed for consideration and if the officer did not record reasons, assessee can not be faulted.
We do not think it necessary to interfere at this stage. It goes without saying that when the matter be taken up by the Assessing Officer on remand, it shall be his duty to take into account all the relevant aspects including the materials, if any, already placed by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. ......................J.
(Dr.Arijit Pasayat) ......................J.
(Dr.Mukundakam Sharma)
New Delhi, August 25, 2008