TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w been assigned to the ITO, Ward-46(1) under the notification of October 22, 2014 which became effective on November 15, 2014. However, such aspect of the matter is not gone into since such reason is not expressly or otherwise indicated in the impugned letter of August 17, 2015. If the reasons indicated in a relevant order suffice for such purpose, it would be wholly unnecessary to supplement the order with additional reasons which did not occur to the authority rendering the decision in the first place. Since it is evident that the petitioning assessee was precluded by Section 124(3)(b) of the Act from questioning the authority of the assessing officer who had issued the notices under Section 148 of the Act dated March 27, 2015 to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 delivered to the department on May 1, 2015. The department has produced documents to demonstrate that the notices under Section 148 of the Act dated March 27, 2015 were received by the petitioning assessee on the same day of March 27, 2015. The petitioners have produced copies of the relevant notices of March 27, 2015 from a previous petition filed in this Court. Each of the notices under Section 148 of the Act pertaining to assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 required the assessee to deliver to the assessing officer within 30 days from the date of service of this notice a return in the prescribed form of the assessee's income. The notices also indicated that they were issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 of the Act to the petitioning assessee and the consequent steps. On the petitioners' previous petition, WP No.655 of 2015, an order was made on July 14, 2015, which directed the ITO, Ward-46(1) to respond to the petitioners' letter dated 29th April, 2015. The concerned ITO has responded to such letter by the impugned letter dated August 17, 2015. As far as the CBDT notification which took effect from November 15, 2014 is concerned, the concerned ITO has only referred to Section 124(3) of the Act to suggest that the petitioning assessee could not have questioned the officer's authority by the letters dated April 29, 2015. The ITO has also referred to certain other aspects which, if correct, may amount to the petitioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act within the time stipulated in the notice under Section 148 of the Act to do the thing required thereby, by virtue of Section 124(3)(b) of the Act, the assessee was precluded from questioning the authority of the addressor of the notice as an assessing officer. That is clear and simple and evident from Section 124(3)(b) of the Act. As noticed earlier, the petitioning assessee did not respond to the notice under Section 148 of the Act within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt thereof. Thus, upon such delay on the part of the petitioning assessee, the right to question the authority of the issuer of the notice under Section 148 of the Act stood extinghished. The concerned ITO has rightly referred to such aspect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons which did not occur to the authority rendering the decision in the first place. Since it is evident that the petitioning assessee was precluded by Section 124(3)(b) of the Act from questioning the authority of the assessing officer who had issued the notices under Section 148 of the Act dated March 27, 2015 to the petitioning assessee on April 29, 2015, the contents of the letters dated April 29, 2015 and the objection as to jurisdiction contained therein had been rightly disregarded by the ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata. Accordingly, WP No.1172 of 2015 is dismissed and the department is left free to take appropriate steps against the petitioners in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified web ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
