9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The allegation of the petitioner herein is that, after issuing the intimation under section 143(1) but without following the procedure prescribed under section 143(2), the respondent proceeded to issue notice under section 148. The said reopening was objected to on the ground of jurisdiction, apart from merits on the reopening. It is stated that the petitioner had informed the respondent that they are registered in the State of Karnataka and having their registered office in Bangalore. It is further stated that the respondent did not act on the original returns filed. It is further alleged that being loss returns filed beyond due dates, they were not even valid in law. The Chief Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is a company registered in Bangalore, the respondent totally lacked in jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel pleaded that on the question of want of jurisdiction itself, the orders were liable to be quashed. A perusal of the writ affidavit clearly shows that the petitioner has admitted about the existence of an effective alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Act against the order of reassessment. It is not denied by learned senior counsel that the question of jurisdiction, apart from the merits, can be raised for consideration before the appropriate appellate forum. Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that considering the total lack of jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not file any return in response to the notice under section 148. The assessment was completed on the basis of material available on record. In spite of adequate opportunity granted, the petitioner had not availed of the same to defend its cause. Learned standing counsel submitted that the contentions that are taken here can equally be taken before the statutory authorities and there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case for the court to exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. We agree with the submissions made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent herein. A perusal of the orders impugned herein show that the issues raised in the writ petitions were taken before the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
