TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le at that address - Nor does the Petitioner inform the Revenue of the address where communication relating to his Return of Income for the AY 1990-91 could be sent - the absence of notice being served upon him, the entire proceedings are bad in law - the order dated 30th March 2006 of the CIT cannot be held as perverse or suffering from any flaw in the decision making process – Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No. 127 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2014 - M. S. Sanklecha And N. M. Jamdar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Tralshwala i/b. Mr. V. S. Hadade For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Pinto JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sanklecha,J.):- This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned order dated 30th March, 2006 refused to entertain the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the Assessment Order dated 19th March 1993 passed under Section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 1990-91. This despite the Assessment Order dated 19th March 1993, being without jurisdiction, alleges the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with a copy of the order dated 19th March, 1993 on 1st April, 1993. In support, a xerox copy of the acknowledgment received from the postal authorities is also annexed to the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006. 7. At the very beginning of his submissions, Mr. Tralshawala, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, invited our attention to the order of this Court passed at the stage of admission on 16th April, 2007 - which reads as under:- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Respondents is unable to produce before us at this stage any record to indicate that the original order of assessment was served on the Petitioner. In view thereof, Rule. 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. There shall be interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) (d). On the above basis, it is submitted that at the stage of admission of the Petition, Respondent Revenue was not able to satisfy the Court that the original order of Assessment dated 19th March, 1993 was served upon the Petitioner by failing to produce the original copy of the postal acknowledgment. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground alone it is submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against which the Revision Application was preferred was served upon the Petitioner on 1st April, 1993, as evidenced from the postal acknowledgment which is annexed to the Petitioner's affidavit in reply dated 12th March, 2007. Thus, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006 calls for no interference. 10. We are exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner to approach the Court with utmost good faith and make complete disclosure in the Petition while seeking relief from this Court. It is not open to a Petitioner seeking to invoke writ jurisdiction to indulge in suppresso veri suggesto falsi. The obligation of the Petitioner in approaching the Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to make candid disclosure about all the material facts leading to the Petition. 11. During the course of submissions, the Petitioner drew our attention to the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax. In that application, it is mentioned that the negative of the film 'Shehzaade' had been attached by the Income Tax Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompleted by the ACIT Circle 13(2), Mumbai and some of the records were transferred to this range after restructuring of the department in August, 2001. At present the original records are not traceable. A copy of the postal acknowledgment has been annexed to the reply. Petitioner has not filed any affidavit in rejoinder, disputing the acknowledgment which has been annexed to the affidavit in reply. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner did contend before us that the same does not bear Petitioner's signature though no affidavit in rejoinder disputing the signature has been filed by the Petitioner. It is only the Petitioner who can dispute this signature on the postal acknowledgment. Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioner has chosen not to take any proceeding against the Assessment Order dated 19th March, 1993, after it was served upon him on 1st April, 1993. This delay of close to 11 years in filing the Revision Application itself indicates the fact that the Petitioner had accepted the Assessment Order dated 19th March, 1993. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
