2004 (2) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Notice under section 148 Interim relief - in the matter of granting stay in a case of this nature the delay in bringing challenge against the aforesaid impugned notices is a factor to be reckoned seriously - petitioner did not ask for the reasons for almost two years rather they accepted the notices by contending that no new returns would be filed the earlier returns would be treated to be the returns to these notices. The petitioner did not ask for the reasons initially because they knew that prima facie there are grounds for the reopening. The petitioner should have approached this court challenging the aforesaid notices much earlier on these grounds. They have chosen not to do so. Therefore the approach act and conduct of the petitioner is not convincing so as to grant interim relief as asked for.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act and subsequent orders for assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-2001.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed income tax returns for the assessment years in question, with assessment orders allowing substantial refunds. However, instead of refunding the amount, the tax authorities issued notices for reassessment in December 2002, based on investments made by the petitioner in government and other securities. The Assessing Officer directed a special audit of the petitioner's accounts, which was later challenged in court. The reasons for reassessment were disclosed by the Assessing Officer, citing income from investments that had allegedly escaped assessment due to a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner's counsel argued that the basis for reassessment had no legal support, as the Supreme Court decision relied upon had been overruled. It was contended that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose income, as deductions had been allowed under the law.

The Additional Solicitor General argued against the writ petition, claiming the petitioner's motive was to delay the lawful proceedings. He highlighted the unexplained delay in challenging the notices and suggested that the petitioner's aim was to stall the assessment process until the statutory time limit expired. The court considered the arguments of both parties and emphasized the importance of timely challenges to assessment notices. It was noted that the petitioner did not request reasons for reassessment for almost two years, indicating awareness of potential grounds for reopening. The court refused the interim relief sought by the petitioner, allowing the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court refused the interim order requested by the petitioner, emphasizing the need for timely challenges to assessment notices. The Assessing Officer was permitted to proceed with the assessment, but the effect of the assessment was not to be given without the court's permission. The court directed the parties to file necessary documents within specified timelines and scheduled the matter for further appearance. Additionally, the court excluded a period from the judgment related to special audit proceedings, deeming an order of injunction to have been granted during that time.