TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. - Writ Tax No. 139 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2017 - Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan ORDER Heard Sri Dhruva Agrawal, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The parties have exchanged pleadings and they agree for final disposal of the petition on the basis of the pleadings on record. The original records pertaining to assessment and reassessment produced by Sri Gaurav Mahajan have also been considered. The challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 31.3.2015 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 2008-09 and to the order dated 4.2.2016 by which the objections of the petitioner against the said notice have been rejected. On the filing of this petition by an interim order dated 22.2.2016 further proceedings of reassessment were directed to be kept in abeyance and as such no order of reassessment till date has been passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary writ jurisdiction of the Court so as to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petitioner in substance has followed the above procedure before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and as such the petition filed on his behalf can not be held to be not maintainable. This apart the decision of Amaya Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer and others (2016) 383 ITR 498 (Bom.) relied upon by Sri Gaurav Mahajan in this connection itself observes that the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are plenary in nature and therefore if the Court finds that interest of justice require exercise of the said power, it can very well do so if the order impugned on the face of it is either without jurisdiction or is in violation of the principles of natural justice or within the teeth of express provisions of law. In view of the above, the objection of the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable is not sustainable and we are not inclined to deny the exercise our power of judicial review in the facts and circumstances of the case as the questions of jurisdiction and non compliance of statutory provisions are i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is taken within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, fulfilment of the second condition would only be necessary if the proceedings are drawn after the expiry of four years. Therefore, in case of any action for reassessment after the expiry of four years, both the above two conditions are mandatory. Section 149 of the Act provides for the extended period of limitation and lays down that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued for reassessment on the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year but not more than six years after the expiry of the end of the relevant assessment year. It thus prescribes the outer limit of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to be six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. At the same time, Section 151 of the Act lays down that no notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued by Assessing Officer after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the authority specified therein is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. In the case at hand, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which were necessary for the assessment. The petitioner admittedly had submitted the complete details of the lease rent paid to the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority during the financial year and that he had not deducted any tax at source. No material in this regard was suppressed by the petitioner and at the same time, no incorrect disclosure in that regard was made by it. The above disclosure was well within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment proceedings. In view of the above, the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act regarding non disclosure of full and true particulars necessary for assessment was not satisfied for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Admittedly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and actually on the last date of extended period of limitation of six years. Thus, in view of the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, no notice under Section 148 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
