TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29-3-2003 - Judge(s) : PRAKASH TATIA. JUDGMENT PRAKASH TATIA J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In all these three matters having identical facts and grievance, the common order is passed. The facts in all the cases reveal that respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner, which was received by the petitioner on February 7, 2003. This notice is purported to be under section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein the petitioner was asked to remain present on February 14, 2003, before respondent No.4. According to the petitioner he found from the letter dated February 7, 2003, that a notice under section 148 of the Act of 1961 was alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on May 29,2001. In response to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No.4 issued another letter on March 5, 2003, informing the petitioner that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment year 1992-93 which was served on the same date at the business premises of the concern and received by Shri Mahaveer Singh who was stated to be the representative of the petitioner. It appears that the next date fixed by respondent No.4 is of March 13, 2003, for filing reply by the petitioner. The petitioner before that, on March 11, 2003, raised objections in detail with a request to decide the objections and pointed out certain decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it laid down that in case of notice issued under section 148 of the Act of 1961, first of all preliminary objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities with intention to cause obstruction in the legal process. The time-gap between the first date of appearance before respondent No.4 and issuance of annexure 8 is only one month. It may be true that sometimes even the courts may be annoyed by the delay caused in the legal proceedings, but that itself cannot be a ground of annoyance resulting into passing orders only because of annoyance. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan [1999] 8 SCC 396 held that in a case where the defendant adopted dilatory tactics and the court passed the decree in favour of the petitioner observed that such annoyance should not disturb the judicial composure. The facts of the case, which were decreed, were recorded in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he will get the right decision. Such an arrogance and attitude is not only absolutely unwarranted, but discloses the pre-determination of the officer to decide the matter in a particular manner, which has not been heard. The Income-tax Officer also observed that instead you (petitioners) are saying that the notice is wrong and he (petitioner) forcibly wants to interpret the judgment of the Supreme Court in his favour. The Income-tax Officer without there being any rhyme or reason condemned the tax advisers and advocates by saying that these persons are adopting tactics to divert attention from the principal question and by raising frivolous pleas causing obstruction in the judicial process. The prejudice of respondent No.4 is apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
