9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to agree with the submission that the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court is not a binding precedent as far as this Court is concerned. Petitioners have also assailed both the notice u/s 148-A(1)(b) as well as the consequential order u/s 148-A(1)(d) on several grounds including the ground of limitation, not considering the objections filed, not providing a personal hearing, non-application of mind to the peculiar facts of each case and several other grounds. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), all these grounds could be urged at a stage when an order is passed u/s 148 in the reassessment proceedings and if it warrants challenge by these Petitioners/Assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Acharya, Advocate (In W.P.(C) Nos.11065 and 12886 of 2022), Mr. Sunil Mishra, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.12038 of 2022) and Mr. S. S. Padhy, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2022) For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Tusar Kanti Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department (In W.P.(C) Nos.8217, 9941, 10693, 12038, 16836, 22817, 31494 31541 of 2022) and Mr. Radheshayam Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel (In W.P.(C) No.14927 of 2022) Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department (In W.P.(C) Nos. 9191, 9940, 9952, 9964, 10697, 10699, 10892, 11065, 11075, 11640, 12328, 12886, 14550, 14552, 14554, 19288, 19474, 20073, 20533, 20611, 20947, 21572, 21573, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd June, 2022 in CWP No.10219 of 2022 (Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) held likewise. In other words, it was held that there was no warrant for interference by the Court at the stage where an order had been passed under Section 148- A(1)(d) of the Act and that all the grounds of challenge to such order could be urged at the stage of challenging the order passed in the reassessment proceedings consequent upon the notice under Section 148 of Act. 5. The above order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) was challenged in the Supreme Court of India by the unsuccessful Petitioner in SLP(C) No.14823 of 2022. While dismissing the said SLP on 2nd September 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) cannot constitute a precedent and is, therefore, not binding on this Court. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on a large number of judgments including Malook Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0795/2021, Tikaram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 10 SCC 689, Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd (2011) 5 SCC 532 and Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488. 8. Having carefully examined the said decisions in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the above order of the Supreme Court in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) cannot be cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
