High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 03 KAR CK 0115

IBM India Private Limited vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit Bangalore-560085

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 20 March 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 5042 and 5043 of 2013 (T-IT)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 372 words

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Common question of law and that of fact arise for decision making, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Show Cause Notices issued by the Commissioner of income tax, Large Tax Payers Unit, invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ''the Act'') in the matter of orders passed by the Assessment Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

2.

There is force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of recording an opinion over why the orders of assessment require initiation of revisionary proceeding, the mere expression that certain items of expenses etc., "need to be examined" does not satisfy the requirement of the issue of Show Cause Notices, u/s 263 of the Act. Having perused the Show Cause Notices impugned undoubtedly, the Commissioner of Income Tax, without disclosing the exact nature of the infirmity noticed in the orders u/s 143(3) of the Act of the Assessing Officer opined that show cause notices are necessary since there is a need to examine the said order on certain aspects.

3.

Learned senior counsel hastens to add that the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short, ''DRP''), having already considered various aspects of the objections raised by the petitioner over the draft assessments, which when resolved followed by an assessment order of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax has no jurisdiction to initiate a revisionary proceeding in substitution of the orders passed by the DRP. If that is so, it is open for the petitioner to point out in the explanation to the show cause notices over such orders of the DRP. Suffice it to state that the show cause notices impugned do not satisfy the requirement of law and therefore, liable to be quashed, reserving liberty to the Commissioner of Income Tax to issue show cause notices afresh, comprehensively including all such infirmities as are noticed by him in the orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, so as to enable petitioner to file effective explanation.

Petitions are ordered accordingly.