9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner to issue the impugned notice since the jurisdictional fact was absent, the petitioner could have raised the said point at the first instance before this Court prior to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner. Petitioner appears to have pursued the writ remedy as a parallel remedy, which is impermissible in law. Now, with the pleadings on record, it does appear to us, at least, prima facie, that the contention of the petitioner of an error of jurisdictional fact having vitiated the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner is not tenable. As decided in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [ 2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court analysed the provisions of Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel for the Respondents. P.C. 1. A notice dated 26.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act , for short) is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the jurisdictional fact for issuance of such notice is absent. 2. We have noted that after receipt of the impugned notice the petitioner sought for the reasons for issuance thereof by his letter dated 04.06.2019; in pursuance thereof, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by a communication dated 11.06.2019 furnished to the petitioner the reasons for reopening of assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2016-2017. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the communication dated 11.06.2019 read as follows: '6. Basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner lodged an objection by his representation dated 04.12.2019 before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax urging several grounds. On the very same day, i.e., 04.12.2019, the petitioner presented this writ petition before this Court whereupon an interim order was passed on 17.12.2019 in terms of prayer clause (D). As a result thereof, no steps could be taken by the respondents pursuant to the impugned notice. 4. The writ petition has been listed today after exchange of pleadings. 5. We have heard Mr. Kapil Kerkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents at some length. 6. We do not appreciate the attempt of the petitioner to have the notice under Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s. Income Tax Officer (2002) 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2007) 161 Taxman 316 (SC) by Ms. Razaq. In GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Delhi High Court dismissing a writ petition in which a similar notice under Section 148 of the Act was under challenge by observing that the noticee ought to lodge objection to issuance of notice, after receiving the reasons for reopening of assessment, and that the Assessing Officer would be bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
