TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng order, the Assessing Officer should give substantial time between 3 to 4 weeks to the petitioner or the assessee to approach the Court for challenging the reassessment proceedings on merit, may be in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is only thereafter that the reassessment proceeding should be concluded. Taking note of all these circumstances and considering the submissions made in detail before us, we find that its a case where arguable grounds have been raised and therefore, we cannot dismiss this writ petition in limine at this stage. The objections raised by the petitioner and the justification for the objections given by the Revenue requires serious and detailed consideration. Accordingly, we are not inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The matter was dealt with in detail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 4046/2015 decided on 21.04.2016 and it was found that merely because a notice under Section 147 is issued, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution is not called for and that the petitioner should raise the objection before the assessing officer and after the objections are decided by the assessing officer, petitioner may take recourse to the remedy as may be available. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, we find that the objections raised by the petitioner was rejected on 16.06.2016 and immediately on the next i.e. 17.06.2016, petitioner challenged the rejection of the objection by filing this writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only perverse but is without any material evidence and therefore the petition should be admitted and interference made. However, after the petition was filed and when it was listed for orders on admission on 20.06.2017 and it was directed to be taken up on 21.06.2017, petitioner received an order of assessment on 20.06.2016 issued on 17.06.2016 and therefore, now by amending the writ petition, the assessment order is also challenged and at the same time reference is made to Judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Ors. [2014] 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) ; Judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me also that merely because this writ petition is pending and stay has been granted, similar treatment cannot be granted to Neeraj Mandloi. Taking note of all these circumstances and considering the submissions made in detail before us, we find that its a case where arguable grounds have been raised and therefore, we cannot dismiss this writ petition in limine at this stage. The objections raised by the petitioner and the justification for the objections given by the Revenue requires serious and detailed consideration. Accordingly, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition at this stage as canvassed by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel. We admit the writ petition, direct that the interim order shall continue to remain in opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
