9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Service of notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the service of notice on the petitioner. 3. Grounds for reopening the assessment. 4. Allegation of the Income Tax Officer acting at the dictate of others. Analysis: Issue 1: Service of notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The petitioner challenged the reopening of assessment based on the service of notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the service of notice is mandatory and must adhere to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner's address discrepancy raised questions regarding proper service. The court referenced legal precedents to establish the principles governing service of notices. Issue 2: Validity of the service of notice on the petitioner The court examined the process of serving notices to the petitioner at different addresses. The process server's attempts to serve the notice personally and subsequent affixation were deemed reasonable and diligent. The court concluded that proper attempts were made to serve the notice, following the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. Issue 3: Grounds for reopening the assessment The court reviewed the grounds for reopening the assessment, which were based on information regarding financial transactions involving the petitioner. The court found that the Income Tax Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment due to non-disclosure of relevant facts by the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge to the notice on this ground was dismissed. Issue 4: Allegation of the Income Tax Officer acting at the dictate of others The petitioner alleged that the Income Tax Officer was influenced by external parties to initiate the reassessment. The court examined the sequence of events and concluded that the Income Tax Officer's actions were based on proper material and not influenced by external factors. The court rejected the contention that the Income Tax Officer acted at the behest of others. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application challenging the reopening of assessment, stating that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for invalidating the notice. The Rule nisi was discharged, and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of operation of the order was also refused.
|
