Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1056 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - as per appellants notices were not served within time either on the Assessee or on his authorized representative - Held that:- Having regard to the facts of present case, as assessment order has already been passed on the basis of impugned notices, we should dispose of the appeal by leaving it open to the appellants to pursue remedy under the Act where all the contentions can be raised including the contention that there was no valid notice served within the time on the assessee or his authorized representative, as contemplated under law. With regard to absence of separate query with regard to AOP, we are not clearly able to cull out whether any separate query / notice was sent to the appellant in Special Appeal No. 30 of 2016. In this regard, we may notice that from the reasons supplied, which we have extracted, wherein ₹ 1,99,31,392/- was noted as escaped assessment, there is reference to the query dated 20.10.2015 and the reminder dated 16.02.2016. We find that in neither writ petition, this query letter dated 20.10.2015 is seen produced. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even reasons supplied would show the query letter was addressed to Sri Maruti Nandan Sah and not to AOP but we would think prima facie that Sri Maruti Nandan Sah is also admittedly the principal member of AOP. We cannot, on the material available, find conclusively - whether it is issued to Sri Maruti Nandan in his individual capacity or as member of the AOP. We would still leave it open to the appellants to raise contentions before statutory authority. We, therefore, cannot proceed on the basis that there is no query letter issued but even then, we leave it open to the appellants to pursue the said contention also that there is no query letter issued with regard to the AOP. Therefore, we think that we should not interfere under Article 226 in the facts of these cases. Instead, we leave it open to the appellants to raise all contentions available to them under the law before the statutory authority.
|