9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view, therefore, would be to relegate the assessee to show cause before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent-Assessing Officer shall afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing and dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice - - - - - Dated:- 26-4-2004 - Judge(s) : M. H. S. ANSARI., SOUMITRA PAL. JUDGMENT M.H.S. ANSARI J. - The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 27, 1989, whereby writ petition being C.R. No. 5559 (W) of 1997 was dismissed and rule discharged. The brief facts of the case are that: For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of even date the two writ petitions were dismissed. In so far as the judgment under appeal (in C.R. No. 5559(W) of 1977) is concerned, it is noticed that the writ application was dismissed for the reasons stated in the judgment in C.R. No. 5046(W) of 1977. The judgment in the said C.R. No. 5046(W) of 1977 is mainly concerned with the validity of the show cause notice issued under section 140A(3). Ms. Chandrima Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, is justified in contending that the judgment under appeal has not dealt with the questions arising for consideration in relation to the show cause notice issued under section 271 impugned in the writ application. Therefore, it is contended that there has been no valid conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-opposition submitted that the writ petition is premature. It was contended that the case of the assessee falls under section 153(1)(b) the time limit for making the assessment is eight years from the end of the assessment year and, therefore, the contention as to the bar of limitation pleaded by the assessee is untenable. It was further submitted that from the assessee's own showing it will be apparent that four different returns showing different incomes had been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 and it is, therefore, a fit case attracting the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The attention of this court was invited to the letter of the Income-tax Officer dated September 29, 1977, at page 30 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue the impugned notice. Where as in the present case, certain disputed questions of fact need to be adjudicated as can be seen from the rival contentions and further the constitutionality of any provision of the Act is not in question and also keeping in view that the very purpose of the show-cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant only thereafter a decision would be taken by the respondent authority, interference before that stage would be premature. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Nizamuddin that in the instant case the writ application ought not to have been entertained and ought to have been dismissed as premature. The assessee is not remediless as in terms of the statute itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
