9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is by referring to Section 279(1) of the Act. The Proviso under Section 279(1) of the Act enumerates officers, who may issue such directions or instructions to the authorities, who have been enumerated under Section 279(1) of the Act. Therefore, to say that the respondent has no jurisdiction even to issue the show cause notice is a plea, which is stated to be rejected. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.29464 of 2017 & WMP.Nos.31761 & 31762 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For the Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC ORDER Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. 2. The petitioner has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income and filing of false statements in the return of income should not be initiated against the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18. 4. The petitioner has also been granted time to file reply on or before 21.11.2017. The show cause notice further states that in the show cause notice, for the sake of clarity, a reference has been made to Sections 279 and 2(16) of the Act. It is also stated that the prosecution proceedings are separate and distinguishable from assessment proceedings and that there is no requirement under the Statute that assessment proceedings should be completed before launching prosecution. 5. The respondent further stated that one of the functions of the Income Tax Department is to take deterrent action a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year 2017-18, that the returns are yet to be processed, that no conclusion has been arrived at by the Assessing Officer on the petitioner's return and that therefore, the impugned show cause notice is premature. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 276C of the Act and submitted that in terms of Clause (i) of Section 276C(1) of the Act, the amount sought to be evaded should exceed ₹ 25,000/- for initiating prosecution and when the returns filed by the petitioner are yet to be processed and no tax demand has been quantified, the question of initiation of prosecution does not arise. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 12. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is premature and that the impugned proceedings being only a show cause notice, the petitioner should submit his objections to the show cause notice. It is his further submission that before initiation of prosecution, the question of issue of a show cause notice does not arise and this has been clearly elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner Vs. Velliappa Textiles Limited [reported in (2003) 132 Taxmann.com 165] wherein the Supreme Court held that the grant of sanction being an administrative act, the need to provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned show cause notice. 15. After elaborately hearing the parties and carefully considering the materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is premature. Firstly, the impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice and therefore, the petitioner has to respond to the same and it cannot be questioned in a writ petition. 16. The sheet anchor of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is by referring to Section 279(1) of the Act. 17. However, the Proviso under Section 279(1) of the Act enumerates officers, who may issue such directions or instructions to the authorities, who have been enumerated under Section 279(1) of the Act. Therefore, to say that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
