TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RASUBBAN J.-This writ appeal is filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-I, Ernakulam, against the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in O.P. No. 17555 of 1997, The petitioners in the original petition are the respondents. The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners are partners of a firm under the name and style "Kerala Hides and Skins". It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of hides and skins. The only source of income of the petitioners is the share income from the firm. While the assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 was completed by the Assessing Officer, the assessment for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 were pending. Against the completed assessment relating to the assessment year 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its P-9 to P-12. Subsequently, the petitioners were served with notices dated August 6, 1997, and September 22, 1997, under section 142(1) of the Act. Copies of the abovesaid notices are marked as exhibits P-13 and P-14. The petitioners were informed subsequently by letters dated August 27, 1997, and September 19, 1997, that in case of non-compliance with the notices issued under section 148 of the Act ex parte assessments will be made in the case of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available. Copies of the letters are marked as exhibits P-15 and P-16. The original petition was filed for a declaration that reassessment proceedings initiated as per exhibits P-9 to P-12 are illegal and without jurisdiction and to quash exhibits P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 1986-87 and 1988-89 on October 7, 1997. In paragraph 2 of the additional statement filed, it is stated as follows "The main contention of the assessee is with regard to the issue of notices under section 148 on March 25, 1997, on a second time. According to the petitioners, the Revenue could not complete the assessments of the petitioners on the basis of the notices under section 148 issued for a second time since, by virtue of the provisions of section 153(2), the proceedings initiated as per notices under section 148 issued on March 21, 1994, as per exhibits P-5 to P-8 already got time barred on March 31, 1996". The Department contended that the issue of notices under section 148 of the Act and its follow up action at each time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussed the points from paragraph 14 onwards. In paragraph 14, the learned judge stated as follows: "As already stated, no assessments were made. The respondent issued fresh notices under section 148 of the Act on March 25, 1997 (exhibits P-9 to P-12). Since the petitioners did not respond to the said notices also the respondent issued notices dated August 6, 1997, and September 22, 1997, exhibits P-13 and P-14, respectively, asking the petitioners to file returns and documents. Two other notices dated August 27, 1997, and September 19, 1997 (exhibits P-15 and P-16), were also issued to the petitioners posting the assessments for final hearing. The question to be decided is as to whether the second notice under section 148 issued on March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 27, 1997, in so far as it relates to the year 1986-87 is beyond the time provided under section 149(1) of the Act. But the said notices are well within the time in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1988-89. The learned judge took the view that the Assessing Officer can issue any number of notices under section 148 of the Act provided the conditions stipulated in section 147 are satisfied. The learned judge also took the view that if an assessment is pending either by way of original assessment or by way of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer cannot issues a notice under section 148 of the Act, but if no proceedings are pending either by way of original assessment or by way of reassessment, he can issue a notice un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings should be completed within eight years from the end of the assessment year. But at the time when the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the statute was amended to bring it as ten years. If ten years is taken into consideration, then both the notices will be valid. Learned counsel submitted to the effect that so far as section 148 of the Act is concerned, it is only a procedural provision. An amendment to the procedure has to be applied for all proceedings, which are pending. We agree with learned counsel that it is the period at the time of reassessment that will be looked into, if by the time of reassessment the entire assessment is not barred as per the provisions. Here, we find that at the time the second notice was issued, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
