9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive and there could be some overlapping and so long as the conditions for the applicability of either of these sections are satisfied. The petitioner does not appear to have properly understood and appreciated the purport of our observation. We have only pointed out that there could be overlapping of jurisdiction and so long as the jurisdictional pre conditions are satisfied, action can be taken by the assessing officer under the appropriate section even though action could be taken under another Section. The argument of the petitioner that action can only be taken under Section 154 did not appeal to this Court, and was rejected - The petitioner has also prayed for recalling the direction imposing cost. We do not find any merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -open the assessment and also to consider all other pleas taken by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent passed a re-assessment order on 28th December, 2010 against which the petitioner filed the second writ petition in WP(C) No. 321/2011. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18th January, 2011 with a direction to the petitioner to file further objections before the respondent along with relevant case law in support of the objections and it was also directed that the respondent should deal with them in accordance with law. In this order, i.e., order dated 18th January, 2011, which is reproduced in the impugned judgment, it was specifically recorded that though a prayer was made in the writ petition to declare certain pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retrospective effect and undisputedly it covered the assessment year 2004-2005 which was the year concerned in the writ petition. All these facts have been recorded in paragraphs 6 7 of the impugned order of this Court. 6. Counsel for the petitioner had, however, taken up the point that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as the sanction of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was not obtained as required by Section 151 (1) of the Act. This Court rejected the contention as it was found on a perusal of the statutory provision that the sanction was required only if the notice was issued by an officer who was below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and that the notice was actually issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not applicable to the case. 9. This Court thus dealt with all the arguments that were raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the course of the hearing on 8th November, 2012. 10. Yet, it is unfortunate that the petitioner has sought to file the review petition running into ten pages alleging that this Court omitted to consider certain arguments stated to have been advanced in the course of the hearing on 8th November, 2012. It is first alleged that the argument that an audit objection was the basis for the re-assessment notice was not considered and dealt with by this Court. We have checked up our records but we do not find that any such argument was taken by the petitioner when the matter was heard on 8th November, 2012. 11. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Court, but in doing so, this Court has wrongly placed reliance on the power of the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment under Section 154 based on a retrospective amendment as permitting the action under Section 147 and to this extent the order is erroneous. It is contended that the scope of the two provisions, i.e., Section 154 and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are different and distinct. The allegation of the petitioner is wholly misconceived having regard to our observations in paragraph 9 of our order. After noticing that the assessment was re-opened within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and that the assessing officer has to show tangible material which could form the basis for his belief th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is of the impression that our decision was rendered on the premise that if action under Section 154 is permissible, action under Section 147 to re-open the assessment is automatically permissible. This is not what we have held; we have only pointed out that there could be overlapping of jurisdiction and so long as the jurisdictional pre conditions are satisfied, action can be taken by the assessing officer under the appropriate section even though action could be taken under another Section. The argument of the petitioner that action can only be taken under Section 154 did not appeal to this Court, and was rejected. 14. The petitioner has also prayed for recalling the direction imposing cost. We do not find any merit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
