Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (9) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er XIV-B against the petitioner till the question as to who exercises jurisdiction over the petitioner as Assessing Officer is decided by this court – Staying the operation of the show cause notice dated August 21,2002, passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not proper unless there is a case of grave injustice - Held that the operation of notice issued by the Assistant CIT is not liable to be stayed - - - - - Dated:- 23-9-2002 - Judge(s) : SUNIL KUMAR GARG. JUDGMENT SUNIL KUMAR GARG J.-Heard on stay application. The stay applications in the above three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them, a common question is involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3559 of 2002: This writ petition has been p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther case of the petitioner is that the authorised officer served a notice dated April 22, 2002 (annexure 4), to the petitioner after conclusion of the search under section 131(1A) of the Act calling upon him to furnish information with regard to sundry depositors as also complete addresses of all trade creditors as on March 31, 2002, and March 31, 2002 (sic). The petitioner was also required to furnish the information with regard to closing stock as on March 31, 2002, as per her books of account and to explain the physical stock as on March 31, 2002. The petitioner was also required to furnish the complete addresses of all the salesmen working in her firm, M/s. Tinwari Automobiles, Jodhpur. The further case of the petitioner is that whil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed August 21, 2002 (annexure 6), issued under section 158BC of the Act of 1961 by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 6) calling upon him to file return under section 158BC without waiting for the decision of this hon'ble court. Therefore, in the stay application, the petitioner has prayed that operation of notice dated August 21, 2002 (annexure 6), issued by respondent No.6 may be stayed. It may be stated here that through notice dated August 21,2002 (annexure 6), a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under section 158BC of the Act of 1961. Section 158BC reads as under: "158BC. Procedure for block assessment.- Where any search has been conducted under section 132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... closed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B." The notice dated August 21, 2002 (annexure 6), passed by respondent No. 6 (the Assistant Commissioner) can be termed as statutory notice under section 158BC of the Act of 1961 by which the petitioner was called upon to submit reply to respondent No. 6 (the Assistant Commissioner). Service of a notice is a condition precedent for the making of an order under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is in law enti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent No. 5 (the Deputy Director (Investigation), Income-tax Department, Aaykar Bhawan, Jodhpur). Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, staying the operation of the show cause notice dated August 21,2002 (annexure 6), passed by respondent No.6 (the Assistant Commissioner) is not proper unless there is a case of grave injustice. In the present case, it cannot be said that it is a case of grave injustice because the petitioner would be at liberty to file its submissions before respondent No.6 (the Assistant Commissioner) while submitting reply to the show cause notice dated August 21, 2002 (annexure 6), issued by respondent No.6 (the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax). Thus, it will be open to the petitioner to take s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates