9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 25 - HC - Income TaxNon supply of order of passed u/s 148 held that - The CIT Meerut is not justified in refusing to supply of copy of the order terminating the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. On the facts of the present case the income tax returns were invited by the department by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act. The said notices were issued by the assessing authority. In this view of the matter the assessing authority or the Commissioner of Income Tax as the case may be is under legal obligation to give a copy of the order terminating the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. We also noticed the observation made by the CIT Meerut that the notices under Section 148 of the Act are meant to tax the escaped income and create additional demand and they are not meant to regularise the belated returns claiming refund. The said observation is totally uncalled for when the proceedings were initiated by the department on their own accord.
Issues:
Challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 4-2-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut regarding assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94. Analysis: The petitioner, an individual and owner of agricultural land, had his land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. Subsequently, the Income Tax Department issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the mentioned assessment years. The petitioner had already deposited sums under self-assessment before the notices were issued. However, the petitioner was not informed of the outcome of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148. Upon requesting a copy of the order, the CIT, Meerut, refused, stating that the notices were not meant to regularize belated returns. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a copy of the order and cited relevant case law. The department contended that the remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119(2)(b) for refund claims related to belated returns. The High Court observed that the petitioner had the right to know the outcome of the proceedings initiated under Section 148 as he had filed returns in response to the notices. The CIT, Meerut, was unjustified in denying the petitioner a copy of the order based on the grounds that the remedy lay elsewhere. The Court emphasized that when the department initiated proceedings on its own accord, the assessing authority or the Commissioner of Income Tax had a legal obligation to provide a copy of the order terminating the Section 148 proceedings. The Court disagreed with the CIT's assertion that the notices were solely to tax escaped income and create additional demand, stating that such an observation was unwarranted given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 4-2-2004 and directed the authority to supply a copy of the order related to the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the Court's order. The writ petition was successful, and the Court allowed it accordingly.
|
