2009 (10) TMI 344 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment- The jurisdiction of the writ court under article 226/227 of Constitution of India while examining the legality and correctness of notices issued under the act is confined to only jurisdictional issues. In other words, the writ court cannot go into factual aspects of the case for deciding the legality of the notices like an appellant court or as an Assessing Officer unless it is found to be perverse. Held that- the notice for reassessment was issued in the name of an association of persons. It was contended that the issue regarding the status of the assessee as to in whose hands the particular income should quashed. The Income Tax Department should proceed to make assessment pursuant to the notices on protective basis .

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices issued under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the notices under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act for various assessment years. The main issue revolved around whether the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the impugned notices. The petitioner argued that the notices were bad in law and should be quashed, while the Income-tax Department contended that the notices were legal and proper as per the provisions of sections 147 and 148.

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the writ court under article 226/227 is limited to jurisdictional issues when examining the legality of notices issued under any law, such as the Income-tax Act. The court cannot delve into factual aspects of the case unless they are extremely perverse. The impugned notices were issued in the name of a specific company, and the reasons for issuing the notices were also provided.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the status of the assessee regarding the taxation of specific income was sub judice in another appeal, thus questioning the basis for issuing the impugned notices. The court rejected this argument, suggesting that if such a situation existed, the Department could proceed with a protective assessment based on the outcome of the pending decision.

Citing various legal authorities, the petitioner's counsel vehemently contended that the impugned notices lacked jurisdiction and were issued against the wrong person. However, after examining the notices and accompanying reasons, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the notices.

Given the circumstances, the court dismissed the writ, recalling all interim orders and directing the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment within six months from the date of the order. The court refrained from providing detailed reasons to avoid prejudicing either party during the assessment and pending appeal before the Tribunal. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be awarded in this matter.