2003 (3) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Notice u/s 148 delay on part of petitioner-assessee - notice was issued as back as on May 31, 2001, the petitioner for the first time raised the preliminary objection after almost two years on March 13, 2003 - conduct of the petitioner of causing delay in the proceedings before the concerned authority itself is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition - In view of the above fact that the petitioner himself did not diligently conduct his case before the appropriate authority and there is gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has alternate remedy to raise his grievance before the concerned authority. This is not a fit case nor should this court entertain the writ petition against a show cause notice issued on May 31, 2001 in the year 2003.

Issues:
1. Compliance with section 151 of the Income-tax Act for issuing notice under section 148.
2. Delay in raising preliminary objections by the petitioner.
3. Failure to diligently conduct the case before the appropriate authority.
4. Request for direction to supply the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.

Compliance with Section 151 of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner argued that under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to record reasons and for the higher authority to sanction the notice under section 148. The petitioner contended that the notice issued on May 31, 2001, lacked jurisdiction as the approval by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was granted without considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner cited the judgment in Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 to support their argument. The court acknowledged the legal requirement of recording reasons and obtaining sanction before issuing a notice under section 148 but noted the petitioner's delay in raising objections after almost two years, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.

Delay in Raising Preliminary Objections:
The court highlighted the petitioner's delay in challenging the notice issued in 2001, as the preliminary objection was raised in 2003. The court considered this delay as a significant factor, indicating the petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing the case before the appropriate authority. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct of causing delays in the proceedings was sufficient grounds to dismiss the writ petition, especially when the petitioner only raised objections against a show cause notice after a considerable period.

Failure to Diligently Conduct the Case:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to diligently conduct the case before the competent authority, as evidenced by the delay in submitting the preliminary objection. The petitioner's failure to request the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax further demonstrated a lack of proactive engagement in the legal proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies to address their grievances before the relevant authority, emphasizing that the court should not entertain a writ petition against a show cause notice issued in 2001 when raised in 2003.

Request for Direction to Supply Approval Order:
The petitioner requested directions for the respondents to supply the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. However, the court rejected this request, stating that since the petitioner did not make the request to the concerned authority, the court was not required to issue such a direction. The court emphasized that the petitioner could obtain necessary documents as per the rules and regulations, and there was no reason to doubt that the respondents would comply with their legal obligations to provide relevant documents.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue the case, substantial delays in raising objections, and the availability of alternative remedies to address grievances before the appropriate authority. The court emphasized the importance of complying with legal procedures and engaging proactively in legal proceedings to seek redressal.

← Previous Next →