2013 (10) TMI 1031 - HC - Income Tax

Writ of Mandamus to implement the decision in Alappat Jewels v. Asst. CIT 2013 (1) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein the petition was dismissed with the liberty the petitioner to file objections against re-opining of assessment u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 After the decision, revenue issued a notice (exhibit P10) asking the petitioner to appear before the AO with documents for finalization of reassessment - petition prays for stay of notice - Held that - the grievance of the petitioner against exhibit P10 notice, asking the petitioner to appear on the specific date with the documents/clarifications for finalizing the assessment is not liable to be entertained by this court, in view of the sequence of events as mentioned hereinbefore. Exhibit P10, as such, is not sought to be set aside in the writ petition and there is no prayer in this regard while the prayer is only to stay exhibit P10 pending writ petition. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to implement the decision in Alappat Jewels v. Asst. CIT 2013 (1) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT . This court holds that no such writ can be issued. There is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the writ petition.

Issues:
1. Compliance with directions in a previous judgment
2. Reopening of assessment under section 147
3. Barred by limitation
4. Change in opinion for reopening assessment
5. Disclosure of material facts
6. Verification of books of account
7. Necessity of passing a "speaking order"
8. Challenge to the previous verdict
9. Maintainability of the writ petition
10. Stay of notice pending disposal of the writ petition
11. Issuance of a writ of mandamus
12. Entertaining grievance against notice for finalizing assessment

Compliance with directions in a previous judgment:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct compliance with directions in a previous judgment. The assessment for the year 2006-07 was sought to be reopened under section 147, and the petitioner challenged this reopening on various grounds, including the limitation period, change in opinion, and the necessity of a "speaking order." The court observed that no objection was filed by the petitioner to the notice, and thus, no interference was warranted at that stage. The petitioner was given the opportunity to file objections, if any, within one month, and the respondent was directed to finalize the matter in accordance with the law.

Challenge to the previous verdict:
The petitioner appealed the initial judgment, contending that a preliminary finding should have been rendered before delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that objections must be considered, and reasons must be given. The petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus to implement this direction and requested a stay of a notice pending disposal of the writ petition. However, the court found that the grievance against the notice for finalizing the assessment could not be entertained, as the main relief sought was the issuance of a writ of mandamus to implement the previous decision. The court held that no such writ could be issued and dismissed the writ petition.

Maintainability of the writ petition:
The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that no writ would lie to implement a verdict already passed, especially by a Division Bench. The court found that the petitioner's understanding was misconceived and that the attempt to stall the proceedings was unwarranted. The court emphasized that the assessment had to be finalized by a certain date to avoid being time-barred, and the petitioner's attempt to delay the proceedings was not justified. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of merit or bona fides.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with various issues surrounding the reopening of assessment, compliance with previous directions, the necessity of passing a "speaking order," and the maintainability of the writ petition. The court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference.

← Previous Next →