AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 2004-2005 in respect of the petitioners income tax Assessment and quash the same. 3. The Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and an assessee under the Income Tax Act 1961. According to the petitioner, for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, it has filed its return of income. For the Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005,the respondent processed the return of income under the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act and granted the refund as claimed in the returns of income. However, on 04.08.2006, the respondent has issued a notice under Section 148 seeking to reassess the income under Section 147 of the Act. The petitioner, vide its letter dated 17.08.2006 had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of the statute specially Section 27(iii)(b) as amended by Finance Act. Further in respect of income received for providing amenities and its maintenance, till date in all the other assessment years including for the assessment years 2002-2003, the income has been assessed under the head 'business income'. Neverthesless, on mere change of opinion the respondent had issued the notices under Section 148 of the Act on 04.08.2006 for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and completed the assessment, when the very notice was under challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.29611 and 29612 of 2007 and this Court gave an oral instruction to the standing counsel for the department to keep the assessment pending till the dispos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for two weeks and the last day of the said two weeks fell on 11.10.2007 and hence beyond that there was no oral direction from this Court to extend the stay. It is further stated that the Standing Counsel has stated that in the absence of any stay order, the Department may proceed with the assessment within the time limit allowed under the Act. It is further stated that in the absence of any specific stay order and non availability of extended time limit, the assessment was completed with the material available on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner had withdrawn the W.P.No.29611 and 29612 of 2007 on 20.2.2008. According to the respondent when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner ought not have mentioned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, the respondent issued a notice dated 4.10.2007 posting the case for enquiry on 09.10.2007 and proceeded to make an assessment on that basis. He further contended that the petitioner informed the respondent in writing that since there was a restraint imposed by this Court against making an assessment, the enquiry cannot be proceeded with on 09.10.2007 and hence the case was adjourned. 13. The further contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to the above posting of the case on 09.10.2007, no notice of hearing was given. While so the assessment order was completed on 31.12.2007 on the ground that the assessment was getting time barred on that day. Thus the respondent has violated the principles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing is given to the petitioner before passing the assessment orders and hence it violates the principles of natural justice. 17. It is seen that W.P.No.29611 and 29612 of 2007 was listed on 27.9.2007 and this Court gave an oral direction not to proceed further for a period of two weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent does not dispute such an oral direction and accepts the fact that the oral direction was in force till 11.10.2007. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, hearing took place on 09.10.2007, however, the petitioner was not present on that day for hearing. 18. A perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner had the intention to attend the hearing, however, there was no oral or writt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Investigation Commission Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotach, Union of India V. T. R. Varma, State of U.P. V. Mohd. Nooh and K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd., V. State of Madras held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Court a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not b....