9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by efflux of time. We, as such, find no substance in the case of the appellant. - GA NO.709 OF 2016 WITH APO NO.97 OF 2016 WP NO.1172 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2016 - GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.R.N.DUTT, MRS.SUTAPA ROYCHOWDHURY, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR.SOUMITRA MUKHERJEE, ADVOCATE The Court :-The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows :- The appellants had earlier filed a writ petition challenging the survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act on 6th February, 2015. Notices issued under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act also on 6th February, 2015; an order under Section 133A (3)(i)(a) dated 24th February, 2015 and a notice dated 27th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act pertaining to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were also challenged on the ground that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had no jurisdiction over the case of the petitioners on and from 15th November, 2014 in view of the Notification dated 22nd October, 2014. The writ petitioner alleged that he had demanded justice by letters dated 12th February, 2015, 29th April, 2015 and 12th Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 which is after expiry of 30(thirty) days from the date (27.03.2015) of service of notice, so you have no right to challenge the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as per section 124(3) of the Act. Moreover, your firm had filed IT return for A.Y. 2014-15 through on line on 25 th January, 2015, which is after the restructuring of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, you have intentionally filed you IT return after knowing the restructuring of the Department and hence your plea for challenging jurisdiction of this case does not hold. Hence, the service of notice u/s 148 of the Act remains valid and the proceedings initiated by way of servicing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14 2014-15 remain fully legal proceedings under the provisions of IT Act. On regards to Section 124(3) of the IT Act, the violation of CBDT s Notifications does not arise in this particular case. 3 Copy of satisfaction obtained from Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-16, Central Board of Direct Taxes, if any, before issuance of such notice. Section 151 of the Act provides the power to Assessing Officer, in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer were without jurisdiction, Section 124 did not give any assistance. Therefore, reliance placed upon sub-section (3) of Section 124 by the assessing officer and subsequently upheld by the learned Trial Court are both erroneous. He in support of his submission relied on a Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. I.T.O, Rampur reported in 1973(87 ITR 539) wherein the following views expressed:- The question whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Court in an application for a writ of certiorari. If the High Court comes to the conclusion, as the learned single judge has done in this case, that the Income-tax Officer had clutched at the jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact erroneously, then the assessee was entitled for the writ of certiorari prayed for by him. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income-tax Officer can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen. In our opinion, the Appellate Bench is wholly wrong in opining that the Income-tax Officer can decide e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to incriminating discovery. Thereafter documents were impounded and it is on the basis of these steps that the notice under Section 148 was issued. Each one of these steps was taken subsequent to 15th November, 2014 but the writ petitioner did not raise any objection. Mr. Dutt submitted that the writ petitioner-appellants did not raise any objection because he had no knowledge of the change of jurisdiction made by the notification issued by the CBDT referred to above. It may be true that the writ petitioners did not have knowledge of the aforesaid notification but limitation on that account shall not remain suspended nor can the period during which the writ petitionerappellant was ignorant about the change of jurisdiction can be excluded because that would be contrary to Section 124(3). The judgement in the case of Raza Textile Limited(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. What had happened in that case was that a demand for more than ₹ 1.39 lakhs was made from the assessee on the ground that he had paid ₹ 2 lakhs on account of commission to a non-resident. It was contended that the assessee, therefore, was liable to deduct tax. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
