TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 of the Act. We are of the considered view that the authorities should deal with these objections and pass a speaking order in accordance with law expeditiously. - - - - - Dated:- 7-7-2005 - Judge(s) : SWATANTER KUMAR., MADAN B. LOKUR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Swatanter Kumar J.- In the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned notice dated May 20, 2004, in relation to the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03 issued by the income-tax authorities under section 148 of the Income-tax Act and also prays for awarding of compensation and costs for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the petitioner as a result of issuance of notice and proceedings taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der has been passed by the respondents as yet disposing of the objections of the petitioner as the petitioner filed the present writ petition on May 25, 2005, not even a week later than the filing of the objections before the competent authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while relying upon the judgments of this court in Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 581 and Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 274 ITR 186, contended that it is not obligatory upon the part of the petitioner to await the passing of the order disposing of the objections/reply filed by the petitioner in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act and as there is apparent illegality in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After having served the notice as afore-referred, the Assessing Officer vide his order dated March 27,1988, disallowed certain deduction claims and made additions to the return of the assessee. A total income of Rs. 52,61,891 was assessed to tax as against return loss of Rs. 1,37,36,350. This order was challenged in appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who gave a relief of Rs. 1,72,593, the actual payment which had been made by the assessee to DESU. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal was preferred by the Revenue as well as cross-objections were preferred by the assessee before the Income-tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of the week, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is stated that the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction as it is merely based upon change of opinion on the same facts. It is also stated that the objection of the petitioner has already been held in favour of the petitioner by acceptance of his appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in relation to the assessment year 2001-02 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). A Division Bench of this court in the case of Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 581 while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued, the proper course for the assessee is to file the return and objections to the notice. As the petitioner has already filed objections he has to await the result of the objections which the Assessing Officer would dispose of by passing a speaking order. According to him invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court at this stage may not be permissible and in this regard he also relies upon the judgment of this court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2002] 257 ITR 702. Normally where a statutory remedy is available to an assessee this court would be reluctant to entertain a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the action complained of of the respondents is without jurisdiction, is on assumption of powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments to substantiate his objection that it is a case of change of opinion and issuance of notice under section 148 was not justified. The plea of the petitioner basically is in relation to the justification or otherwise for issuance of such notice but is no way a case of without jurisdiction. These objections have to be considered by the competent authority and dealt with by passing a speaking order in accordance with law as laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19. We have already passed an order in relation to other years in W.P.(C) No. 5562/2005 (Jagdish Preshad Gupta v. Joint CIT (No. 1) [2006] 283 ITR 583 (Delhi)) and we see no reason to pass a different order in the present case. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
