Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 495 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - grievance of the petitioner is that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has besides deciding the dispute with regard to the date of issue of notice dated 28th March, 2015 also held that the notice has been served upon the petitioner by virtue of deemed service of notice - Held that:- We notice that the impugned order dated 6th September, 2016 the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has correctly recorded that the following two issues had to be decided by him consequent to the order dated 13th July, 2016 of this Court : (i) Whether or not the alleged notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, and (ii) If so, the date of its issuance. Therefore, all observations/findings with regard to service of the impugned order dated 6th September, 2016 are completely outside his mandate and are to be ignored. It would be open for the Assessing Officer while deciding on the reopening notice to independently consider the issue of service of the impugned notice dated 28th March, 2015. Needless to state the Assessing Officer will not be even remotely influenced by the observations as to deemed service of the notice in the impugned order dated 6th September, 2016. We must make it clear that window of four weeks was provided only to safeguard the petitioner in case the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is in breach of our directions. This safeguard given to the petitioner will not entitle it to convert the writ court into an appellate authority to examine the weight to be given to the evidence led before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. In fact, nothing has been shown to us which would even remotely suggest that the order dated 6th September, 2016 is perverse in any manner.
|