9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate assisted by Mr. Jaideep Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N. S. Bhati ORDER ( PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ) : 1. In these petitions, prayer for stay of effect and operation of the impugned assessment orders and demand notices has been made on common grounds and submissions. 2. The impugned assessment orders and demand notices have been issued after reassessment carried out under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') in relation to Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that reopening of assessment in all the cases is barred by limitation as under the new regime of law, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of proceeding under faceless assessment provision, physical assessment has been carried out by the jurisdictional Assessment Officer, therefore, that is also contrary to the provisions of law. 4. It is also submitted that the notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, which followed the impugned assessment orders, have been passed in the name of a dead person, therefore, all the proceedings are nullity. 4.1. It is also submitted that earlier when notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 were issued, writ petitions were filed challenging the respective notices pertaining to different assessment years, as stated above, wherein initially interim order was passed, but later on, all the writ petitions were disposed of with direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search carried out in the premises of another person, wherein transactions between the deceased father of the petitioner and the persons in whose premises search was carried out evidencing many transactions, were revealed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though earlier notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 were issued, the grounds which are now being raised insofar as the allegation that it was barred by limitation or on the ground that notice was issued in the name of a dead person, was not pressed into service and the petitioner was satisfied with direction for supply of reasons for reopening. After the order of this Court, reasons were duly supplied. The petitioner's response was obtained and then the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), decided on 03.10.2024, whereas interim orders were passed earlier in other cases prior to aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8.1 We further find that the notices are alleged to be defective on the ground that the same were issued against a dead person, but the contents of the notices issued from time to time show that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the notice along with the name of his deceased father. 8.2 Physical assessment carried out by the respondents is subjected to challenge in the second round of petition, whereas the petitioner was satisfied with the direction issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation that he may be supplied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
