9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have to conclude that impugned assessment orders as also reassessment orders were passed ex parte and behind the back of the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to participate in assessment proceedings which are subject-matter of this petition for want of notice. These assessment, therefore, cannot be given effect to. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated December 13, 1990 (annexure P7), December 13, 1990 (annexure P5), August 29, 1985 (annexure P6), order sheets dated August 10, 1988 to March 10, 1992 (annexure P8), orders (collectively) dated April 23, 1992 (annexure P9) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The assessing officer shall make proper assessment in respect of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the jurisdiction which it do not have presently and by virtue of this order the appellant would be forbidden to raise that point if such proceedings is to be initiated against him. Shri Choudhary submitted that the assessing authority may be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh notices, if law permits and in that case, the appellant would be entitled to agitate point of limitation for challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. He submitted that the order which has been assailed by this appeal needs to be set aside as it is not proper, correct and legal. 3.. Shri S.S. Kemkar, counsel appearing for the respondents, justified the order under challenge by submitting that the learned Judge has right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of doctrine of "ejusdem generis". The appellant will have to be brought to the stage where he stood before the said notices were issued and were intended to be served on him. He will have to be brought to the stage where he stood and was entitled to agitate the point of limitation in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147. That is the right which the appellant has acquired on account of inactiveness on the part of the concerned department, and that right cannot be taken away from him without giving him opportunity of agitating it and allowing him to get that point adjudicated legally. Inadvertently, it seems that the words whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
