9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition being C. R. No. 3100 (W) of 1974. It appears from the application that in the said writ petition challenge was to the notice dated March 27, 1974 for the assessment year 1969-70 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the annexures it appears the matter was moved on May 27, 1974. After hearing the parties rule was issued and an interim order of injunction was granted in terms of prayer (e) of the writ petition till the disposal of the rule. Rule was made returnable after eight weeks. Directions for affidavits were also issued, it was recorded that the respondents would be at liberty to continue and conclude the reassessment proceedings. However, the demand and the order would not be communicated to the petitioner and/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of negligence. However, as the respondents by letter dated November 13, 2006 had intimated that for the assessment year 1969-70 a sum of Rs. 2,069 is outstanding and the petitioners by letters dated November 20, 2006 and February 19, 2007 had followed up the matter, it can be presumed that there was some communication gap between the petitioners and the erstwhile advocate on record. Since the matter was dismissed, prayer has been made to grant leave to file a fresh affidavit praying for a direction upon the Revenue to communicate the order under section 148 of the Act so that the petitioners can prefer appeals against the assessment in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Shibdas Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o step could be taken to amend the writ petition. Further, it has been stated that despite repeated requests the erstwhile advocate on record did not take steps in the matter. It appears from the application that in January, 2008 the petitioners came to know that the erstwhile advocate on record had expired on August 20, 2007. Thereafter, on February 22, 2008 the petitioners appointed the present learned advocate on record and instructed him to take necessary steps for early disposal of the petition. On the said date the present learned advocate on record filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners. Perusing the statements made in paragraphs 7 to 12, I find there is no statement whether instruction was given to the erstwhile advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petition being C. R. No. 3100 (W) of 1974, the application for registration is dismissed. Accordingly, I decline to entertain the prayer of the petitioners to file a fresh affidavit praying for a direction upon the respondents to communicate the order under section 148 of the Act so that the appeals can be preferred against the assessment. Hence, no order is passed on the application for reconstruction being C. A. N. No. 2414 of 2009 and the same is, thus, disposed of. 7. Let copies of the notice dated November 13, 2006 issued by the Assist-ant Director of Income-tax (E-l), Kolkata and the letters dated November 20, 2006 and February 19, 2007 issued by the Birla Janakalyan Trust be kept on record. 8. In the facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
