TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s petition are as under: The petitioner, who is sole proprietor of Messrs. G. P. Enterprises, derives income from his proprietorship concern, Messrs. G. P. Enterprises, and thus he has been assessed as an individual under the Act. The petitioner has filed income-tax returns for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 showing taxable income amounting to Rs. 1,74,770 for the assessment year 1989-90 and Rs. 2,02,390 for the assessment year 1990-91, and claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Act to the tune of Rs. 42,848.40 for the assessment year 1989-90 and Rs. 54,547.54 for the assessment year 1990-91. However, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, Circle-I, Ghaziabad, accepted the return as disclosed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the assessment in pursuance of the proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act, is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, and thus reassessment proceedings for both the years are liable to be quashed. The petitioner, however, submitted in the petition that deduction under section 80-I of the Act was duly considered by the Assessing Officer while dropping the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, and thus it is contended that proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act would be nothing but a repeating proceeding. In this way, this petition is filed, inter alia, on the ground that once proceedings have been dropped under section 154 of the Act, reopening of the proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is the only remedy available to him. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Kant, submitted a list of the following cases, ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) ; Raunaq and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 158 ITR 30 (Delhi); Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC); Genl. Mrigendra Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana v. ITO [1980] 123 ITR 329 (Delhi); Claridges Hotel P. Ltd. v. ITO [1980] 123 ITR 844 (Delhi) ; Mohindra Mohan Sirkar v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 47 (Cal) and ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1 (SC), and contended that where issuance of the notice prima facie appears to be without jurisdiction, proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution are not barred and the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such show-cause notice. We have pointed out earlier that learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any specific provision under the Act that proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Act for which show-cause notice has been issued, vide annexure-5, is without any authority inasmuch as the Act does not give such jurisdiction to respondent No. 1 and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the authorities referred to and relied upon by learned counsel mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We may observe here that the scope, powers and jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution particularly in tax matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
