VISHAL ASHWIN PATELversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS.

814            SUPREME COURT
                         [2022]REPORTS
                                2 S.C.R. 814              [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A                         VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL
                                       v.
      ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3)
                          & ORS.
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 2200 of 2022)
                               MARCH 28, 2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Judgment/Order: Reasoned/Speaking order – Reopening of
C     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
D     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
E     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 –
F     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.
G     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

H
                                      814
   VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF                      815
            INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS.

writ petition’, nothing further has been stated by the High Court        A
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
                                                                         B
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]                                  C
      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            D
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              E
      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        F
(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     G
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3209 of 2019.
      With
      Civil Appeal Nos. 2201, 2202 and 2203 of 2022.

                                                                         H
816             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A           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
B
            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
C     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. We have heard Shri Devendra Jain, learned counsel appearing
D     on behalf of the respective appellants and Shri Balbir Singh, learned
      ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue. We have gone through the
      respective orders passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions.
      Having gone through the orders passed by the High Court dismissing the
      writ petitions, it can be seen that the said orders are cryptic, non-speaking
      and 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 who
            had pass the order dated 10th October, 2019 rejecting the objections
            filed by petitioner for re-opening under Section 148 of the Income
            Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) shall permit petitioner to file further
F           documents and case laws if adviced and also grant a personal
            hearing before passing the assessment order. The assessment
            order to be passed within 12 weeks from the date this order is
            uploaded. Petitioner shall be given atleast seven days advance
            notice about the date and time of the personal hearing.
G           2. The Assessing Officer shall deal with all the submissions made
            by 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 the
      reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act
H     has been challenged on a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised
    VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF                              817
       INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

in the writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by the High           A
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 writ petition’, nothing
further has been stated by the High Court giving reasons for the
                                                                                  B
disinclination to entertain the writ petitions.
       2.1 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              C
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.
       2.2 The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of              D
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.
        2.3 While emphasising the necessity to pass a reasoned order, in
the case of Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite                        E
Private Limited, (2018) 8 SCC 443, it is observed and held by this
Court that the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which
must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to
the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties,
the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in         F
support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by
the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is further
observed in the said decision that an order bereft of reasoning causes
prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the reasons as
to why one party has won and other has lost.
                                                                                  G
       2.4 In the recent decision in the case of Union Public Service
Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC
516, while emphasising the reasons to be given by the High Court while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is
observed and held by this Court that the reasons constitute the soul of
judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a               H
818              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings
      legitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics of
      disposal of cases is important of higher value is the intrinsic content of
      judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers under Article
      226 the courts require to independently consider the issues involved.
B            3. Applying the law laid by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to
      the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Court
      has disposed of the writ petitions, in the interest of sobriety, we may only
      note that 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
C     recorded upon analysing the relevant documents.
            4. Since we cannot countenance the manner in which the orders
      have been passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand
      the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on
      merits, we do so in light of the aforesaid observations.
D
             5. In light of the foregoing discussion, we allow the present appeals
      and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and remand
      the matters to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ
      petitions afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view our observations
      made supra. We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from
E     making any observation on merits of the controversy, having formed an
      opinion to remand the cases to the High Court only for the reasons
      mentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ
      petitions, bearing in mind our observations made above, strictly in
      accordance with law.
F            With the above directions, the present appeals are accordingly
      allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remanded
      to the High Court as aforesaid. No costs.


      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeals allowed.
G




H