TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashed. The respondents are directed to proceed with the assessment on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier notices. - - - - - Dated:- 24-6-2004 - Judge(s): BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA. JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, has challenged four notices, two dated February 11, 1983, and the other two dated March 29, 1983 all issued under section 148 of the said Act. Initially, the first two notices dated February 11, 1983, under section 148 of the Act were issued for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively, on the ground that the Income-tax Officer concerned had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no scope for giving further notices under section 148 of the Act when no assessment had been made on the basis of the subsequent returns filed by the petitioner, in compliance with the earlier notices dated February 11, 1983. In support of such contention, Dr. Pal relies upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630. This application is opposed by the income-tax authority and Mr. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has opposed the aforesaid two contentions raised by Dr. Pal. Mr. Mitra contends that the first two notices dated February 11, 1983, were patently illegal, inasmuch as, by those notices the Income-tax Officer tried to reopen assessments made more than four year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar [1965] 55 ITR 630 relied upon by Dr. Pal. In the said case, an invalid notice under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is equivalent to section 148 of the present Income-tax Act, was served and the return was submitted pursuant to such notice. The question was whether that was a valid return and whether the notice of assessment ignoring such return could be upheld. In such facts, the Supreme Court was of the view that although the notice under section 34 was invalid, the return submitted pursuant to that invalid notice was a "return" within the meaning of section 22(3) of the said Act and the Income-tax Officer could not ignore or disregard that return and issue a fresh notice under section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same assessment year by setting out the necessary reason and after removal of defects pointed out earlier. In such a case, it was held that since the Tribunal had recorded a finding to the effect that the very initiation of the proceeding under section 147 by the earlier notice was without jurisdiction, there was no earlier proceeding subsisting when the second notice was served upon the assessee. In the case before us, the earlier notice has not been declared by any Tribunal as invalid and at the same time the returns submitted pursuant to the earlier notices have not been assessed and thus the earlier proceedings were pending at the time of issuing the second notice and as such the principles laid down in the said decision cannot have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
