Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 14-2, Delhi & Ors.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 15th May, 2020, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), for the Assessment Year 2013-14, the reasons recorded for reopening and the approval granted by the Respondent No.2; the assessment order and demand notice dated 30th March, 2022 and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto; the show cause notices dated 20th September, 2021 and 13th January, 2022 and the notice dated 25th March, 2022, show cause notice dated 30th March, 2022, issued by the Respondent No. 3 for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, notice dated 07th June, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and notices dated 18th May, 2022 and 23rd May, 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in the present case, two reassessment notices have been issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Act for the same assessement year. He states that the first notice is dated 15th May, 2020, which has been issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward 14(2), Delhi, whereas the second notice has been issued on 07th June, 2021, by the Assessing Officer, Ward 14(1). He contends that Assessing Officer, Ward 14(2) is not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO’) of the Petitioner. In the alternative, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that two reassessment notices could not have been issued simultaneously.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that the assessment order dated 30th March, 2022, has been passed without disposing of the objections raised by the Petitioner vide letter dated 22nd July, 2021. He submits that non-disposal of objections before passing the assessment order is in disregard of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/S GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. Income Tax Officers & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 72.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also states that despite several requests made by the Petitioner to share the copy of statement of Sh. Kewal Krishna Arora, which formed one of the main grounds for making the addition, the said statement was not shared till the conclusion of personal hearing on 25th March, 2022. He states that copy of the statement of Shri Kewal Krishna Arora, relied upon by the Assessing Officer, was shared with the Petitioner vide notice dated 25th 14:25:55 PM requiring the Petitioner to make compliance on or before 25th March, 2022 by 9:42 AM i.e. compliance date and time was set even prior to the date of issuance of notice.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Revenue, on instructions states that notice dated 15th May, 2020 under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer Ward 14(2), Delhi, as on the said date, the said Assessing Officer had jurisdiction over the Petitioner. He points out that since August, 2020, current Ward 14(1), Delhi, and Ward 14(2) had been merged. He also emphasizes that both the reassessment notices had been issued on the same information. He also states that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was given an oral hearing by way of a video conference on 25th March, 2022.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he does not wish to press the first issue of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Ward 14(2) to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is settled law that during the subsistence of a reassessment proceedings, another reassessment notice cannot be issued for the same assessment year. The Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Sanjay Kumar Garg, [2015] (9) TMI 390 – Delhi High Court has held as under:- [