TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r - , we find that the reasons had been disclosed and furnished to the petitioner who had also filed his reply/objections which had been considered and disposed of by a speaking order dated 4th December, 2009. However, we note, the petitioner did not file any return despite the specific requirement under the law. Because the petitioner did not file a return, the assessment order dated 30th December, 2009 has been made under Section 144 of the said Act. – Assessee can not argue the case two times – Assessee petition dismissed. - 305/2010 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2010 - MR. BADAR DURREZ AHMED and MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr Ashok Arora, Petitioner in person. For the Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal JUDGEMENT : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are recd. along with notice u/s 142(1), 143(3), letter dt. 23.10.2009" 4. The said endorsement is signed by the petitioner and the date 23rd November, 2009 is written in the petitioner‟s handwriting. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the mention of Section 143(3) in the said endorsement is an inadvertent error and it should be read as 143(2). 5. The letter dated 23rd October, 2009 which was received by the petitioner on 23rd November, 2009 as per the aforesaid endorsement was as under:- "OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 37(3), ROOM NO.408, N-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI F. No.ITO/Ward/37(3)/08-09/ Dated 23/10/2009 To, Sh. Ashok Arora 76, Sukhdham Apptts, Plot No.1, Sector- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to 23rd November, 2009 and, as such, the date mentioned in the letter of 4th November, 2009 had gone by, it is clear that the petitioner was made aware of what he was required to do. 7. After receipt of the said reasons for reopening of the case, copies of the said notices and a copy of the said letter dated 23rd October, 2009, the petitioner sent a letter dated 2nd December, 2009 to the Assessing Officer, carrying the following subject:- "Reply to the notice of the assessment proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2002-03." 8. The said reply dated 2nd December, 2009 was an exhaustive one, running into 35 pages. 9. Thereafter on 4th December, 2009 the Assessing Officer, after go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in this petition, as stated above, is that notice under Section 148 of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement for initiation of the proceedings, has not been served upon the petitioner. Though the respondent maintains that such a notice was served and learned counsel for the respondent has produced photo copy of the Speed Post Booking List issued by the Post Office, the petitioner is denying the receipt. The case of the respondent also is that this notice was served to the petitioner in his chamber. However, submission of the petitioner is that it was given to some Sandhya Mittal‟ and the petitioner does not know any such person. He further submits that the chamber number of the petitioner in Tis Hazari courts was wrongly me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is wrong in assuming that what was handed over by the learned counsel for the respondent was a fresh notice under Section 148. The Court had only directed the respondent to serve a "copy" of the notice dated 27th February, 2009 issued under Section 148, upon the petitioner within two days. That had been done. This did not mean that a fresh notice under Section 148 had been issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner. Only a copy of the notice which had already been issued to the petitioner had been once again‟ served upon the petitioner. 13. Secondly, insofar as the plea of opportunity of hearing is concerned, we note that the petitioner had ample opportunities. This is clear from the fact that he inspected the file on 23rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under the law. Because the petitioner did not file a return, the assessment order dated 30th December, 2009 has been made under Section 144 of the said Act. 16. In any event, all the proceedings prior to the passing of the assessment order were the subject matter of the said writ petition [W.P.(C) 13977/2009]. The Division Bench hearing that matter did not find favour with the arguments of the petitioner and did not quash the proceedings under Section 147/148. The matter has proceeded further and has culminated in the assessment order dated 30th December, 2009. The petitioner cannot re-agitate all those issues which were already before the Division Bench which had passed order dated 22nd December, 2009. Insofar as the petitioner‟s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
