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

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 28-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 814
814
VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL
v.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3)
& ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 2022)
MARCH 28, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Judgment/Order: Reasoned/Speaking order – Reopening of
assessment challenged by the appellant-assessee by filing writ
petitions – High Court dismissed the writ petitions – From the writ
petitions produced on record, it appears that the reopening of the
assessment was challenged on a number of grounds – None of the
grounds raised in the writ petitions were dealt with and/or
considered by the High Court on merits – There was no discussion
at all on any of the grounds raised in the writ petitions – High
Court dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is
unsustainable – Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain
writ petition’, nothing further was stated by High Court giving
reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions – High
Court in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of
India was required to have independently considered whether the
question of reopening of the assessment could be raised in a writ
petition and if so, whether it was justified or not – Matter remitted
to High Court for consideration afresh – Constitution of India –
Art.226.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: 1. None of the grounds raised in the writ petitions
has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court on merits.
There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds raised in the
writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court has
dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is
unsustainable. Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
writ petition’, nothing further has been stated by the High Court
giving reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions.
The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed
of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order is not
appreciated by this Court. When a number of issues/grounds
were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the
court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned
order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the
power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give
such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing
to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate
reasons. [Paras 2, 2.1][816-H; 817-A-D]
2. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India was required to have independently
considered whether the question of reopening of the assessment
could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified
or not. The orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds
were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been
examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding
was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant
documents. [Paras 2.2, 3][817-D-E; 818-B-C]
Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Private
Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018] 7 SCR 1130; Union
Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and
Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 516 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 7 SCR 1130
 relied on
Para 2.3
(2021) 4 SCC 516
 relied on
Para 2.4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2200
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3209 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2201, 2202 and 2203 of 2022.
VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Devendra Jain, Ms. Radha Halbe, Rajat Mittal, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Balbir Singh, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Shyam Gopal, Ms. Akanksha
Kaul, Ms. Preeti Rani, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petitions
Nos.3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019 and 3137/2019, by which the
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions in
which the appellants herein – original writ petitioners challenged the
reopening of the assessment/re-assessment proceedings, the original writ
petitioners have preferred the present appeals.
2. W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.