TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit Petition (T) No. 168/2016 by the learned Single Judge in which the respondent/assessee herein had filed the aforesaid petition against notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act') dated 15.03.2016 and 13.04.2016 (Annexure-P/2) for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and communication rejecting objections dated 15.01.2016 (Annexure- P/9). 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from grave illegality and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts and law governing the field hence deserve to be set aside by this Court in the interest of justice. She further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the facts that once the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dance with the provisions of Section 148(1) of the IT Act. 4. She also submits that the learned Writ Court did not appreciate the fact that the quantum of tax involved in the instant case is Rs.4,50,00,000/- and at best the matter could have been remanded back for curing the defect of non-service of notice. The photocopy of original records were produced before the learned Writ Court and the original records were readily available for the perusal of the learned Writ Court, but the same has been inadvertently overlooked while allowing the Writ Petition. She also submits that the photocopy of the original records of the assessment proceedings against the respondent/assessee was also perused by the Writ Court. Since the impugned order suffers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id assessment year, was rejected indicating that notice was issued on 15.03.2016 on the address shown in the tax returns and it has returned back on 28.03.2016 to the office citing the reason to be "left". Questioning the initiation of proceeding of reassessment under Section 148 of the IT Act, that writ petition has been preferred principally on the ground that no notice was issued within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) read with Section 148(1) of the IT Act and, therefore, the initiation of proceeding for reassessment is barred by limitation and even otherwise, alternatively, no notice was served to the writ petition under Section 148(1) of the IT Act, as such, initiation of proceeding for reassessment and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Single Judge in the light of principle of law laid down in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 and Jeans Knit Private Ltd. Bangalore Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1536 and considering the facts leading to challenge to the show cause notice, held that the writ petition is maintainable to challenge the notice for reassessment issued under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the IT Act. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed that from a perusal of documents, it appears that the no notice was served to the respondent under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, having raised an objection regarding the failure by the Revenue to effect service of notice upon him, the main part of Section 292 BB is not attracted." 10. Learned Single Judge has further observed that it cannot be held that the writ petitioner was served with notice under Section 148(1) of the IT Act. Thus, held that neither notice under Section 148(1) of the IT Act within the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 149(1)(b) of the IT Act was issued to the respondent nor it was served in terms of Section 148(1) of the IT Act, therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the said notice and the order deciding objection dated 05.08.2016 are without jurisdiction and without authority of law and accordingly allowed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and no reason has been assigned as to why documents 'A' to 'R' filed before the writ appellate court, could not be filed before the writ court particularly when the return was filed by the review petitioners before the writ court on 11- 12-2017. It is not the case of the review petitioners that these documents were not available to them when the return was filed and writ petition was heard. The application for taking additional documents on record filed before the writ appellate court is conspicuously silent in this regard and the review petitioners were obliged to state in the said application that these documents could not be filed despite due diligence. As such, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warr....