VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS. on 28 March 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orderspassed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ PetitionsNos.3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019 and 3137/2019, by which theCDivision Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions inwhich the appellants herein – original writ petitioners challenged thereopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings, the original writpetitioners have preferred the present appeals.

2. We have heard Shri Devendra Jain, learned counsel appearingDon behalf of the respective appellants and Shri Balbir Singh, learnedASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue. We have gone through therespective orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions.Having gone through the orders passed by the High Court dismissing thewrit petitions, it can be seen that the said orders are cryptic, non-speakingand non-reasoned orders. The order dated 11.01.2022 reads as under:-E“1. We are not inclined to entertain this petition. At the same time,the Assessing Officer who will be different from the officer whohad pass the order dated 10th October, 2019 rejecting the objectionsfiled by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) shall permit petitioner to file furtherFdocuments and case laws if adviced and also grant a personalhearing before passing the assessment order. The assessmentorder to be passed within 12 weeks from the date this order isuploaded. Petitioner shall be given atleast seven days advancenotice about the date and time of the personal hearing.

G2. The Assessing Officer shall deal with all the submissions madeby petitioner including those raised in his objections to the re-opening and pass detailed order in accordance with law. “

From the writ petitions produced on record, it appears that thereopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax ActHhas been challenged on a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by the HighCourt on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the groundsraised in the writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court hasdismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable.Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain writ petition’, nothingfurther has been stated by the High Court giving reasons for thedisinclination to entertain the writ petitions.

2.1 The manner in which the High Court has dealt with anddisposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is notappreciated by this Court. When a number of issues/grounds were raisedin the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with thesame and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitutionconfers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the dutyof the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courtswould be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequatereasons.

2.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India was required to have independently consideredwhether the question of reopening of the assessment could be raised ina writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not.

2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, inthe case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore CompositePrivate Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it is observed and held by thisCourt that the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case whichmust contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties tothe lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties,the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons insupport of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged bythe learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is furtherobserved in the said decision that an order bereft of reasoning causesprejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the reasons asto why one party has won and other has lost.

2.4 In the recent decision in the case of Union Public ServiceCommission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC516, while emphasising the reasons to be given by the High Court whileexercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it isobserved and held by this Court that the reasons constitute the soul ofjudicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adefining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice bringslegitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics ofdisposal of cases is important of higher value is the intrinsic content ofjudgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers under Article226 the courts require to independently consider the issues involved.

B3. Applying the law laid by this Court in the aforesaid decisions tothe facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Courthas disposed of the writ petitions, in the interest of sobriety, we may onlynote that the orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds wereurged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by theHigh Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to beCrecorded upon analysing the relevant documents.

4. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the ordershave been passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remandthe matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh onmerits, we do so in light of the aforesaid observations.D

5. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present appealsand set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and remandthe matters to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writpetitions afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view our observationsmade supra. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained fromEmaking any observation on merits of the controversy, having formed anopinion to remand the cases to the High Court only for the reasonsmentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writpetitions, bearing in mind our observations made above, strictly inaccordance with law.

F

With the above directions, the present appeals are accordinglyallowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remandedto the High Court as aforesaid. No costs.

Devika GujralG

Appeals allowed.

H