TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the petitioner has failed to do. Therefore, he cannot now rely on the ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in a wrong note. Even in respect of the subsequent order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has to submit his reply, which should reach the office of the 2nd respondent on or before 14.12.2018, as the case is getting time barred on 31.12.2018. Instead of furnishing the details and producing the documents, the petitioner has chosen to file the Writ Petition, mainly on the ground that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. As far as the last date for issuance of notice, under Section 148 of the Act, in the present case is concerned, it is 31.03.2017 and the respondents have produced the postal receipt, showing that the notice was registered before the concerned Post-Office on 31.03.2017. Thus, for all purposes, the notice has been issued on 31.03.2017 and delivery of the cover to the assessee or in the last known address, may not be a deciding factor for the purpose of retaining the period of limitation. Once the notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued within the period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as the impugned letter issued by the 2nd respondent on 06.12.2018 are sought to be quashed in the present Writ Petition. 2.The petitioner states that he is not an Assessee on the file of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(3), Tirupur, India, and he has no taxable income in India, except, certain bank interest in which TDS has been duly deducted by the banks under Section 195 of the Act. The petitioner states that he had applied for a Permanent Account Number (hereinafter referred to as 'PAN'), showing his mother's address as No.488, Mani Road, Kunnathur, Erode-638 103. The PAN was allotted in PAN No: AMUPR6293E. Since the petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian, he has not filed any Income Tax Returns for the last fifteen years and the said factors are known to the respondents-Income Tax Department also. Shockingly, the 1st respondent has issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2017 and the said notice was booked at Tirpur Post-Office only on 04.04.2017 and the same was received at the native place of the writ petitioner, more specifically, by his brother, on 05.04.2017. The notice contemplates that the 1st respondent has reason to believe that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the event of any change of address, it is the duty of the assessee to submit proper application and change the address in PAN, which the petitioner has failed to do. Therefore, he cannot now rely on the ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in a wrong note. Even in respect of the subsequent order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has to submit his reply, which should reach the office of the 2nd respondent on or before 14.12.2018, as the case is getting time barred on 31.12.2018. The 2nd respondent requested the petitioner to furnish the records and details, enabling the authorities to proceed with re-assessment proceedings. Relying on the said factual aspects, the learned Senior Standing Counsel made a submission that the Writ Petition is pre-matured, as the petitioner has to furnish the records and the department has to give the reasons for reopening of assessment and the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) are to be followed scrupulously. As far as the jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands failed. 6.The authorities once identified that the jurisdictional office is different, then transfer of such files to the jurisdictional office is the procedure to be followed and in the present case, the 1st respondent rightly transferred the case to the 2nd respondent to proceed with reopening of assessment proceedings and the 2nd respondent, in turn, sent a letter to the petitioner/assessee on 06.12.2018 and the petitioner, instead of responding to the letter, has chosen to file the Writ Petition and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition is pre-matured and the petitioner has to establish his case by producing documents and furnishing information to the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, has to follow the procedures contemplated and proceed with re-assessment proceedings. Recently in the case of PCIT Vs. IVen Interactive Limited (Supreme Court) in Civil Appeal No.8132 of 2019, dated 18.10.2019 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 7 .Now so far as the observations made by the High Court while concurring with the view of the learned Tribunal that merely by filing of return of income with the new address, it shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
