9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad and completed the impugned assessments on the plea that the same was getting time barred without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. – Held that the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the CIT is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh assessment and the respondent is directed to pass orders on the fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - 1947 and 1948 of 2008 and 1 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2009 - MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P.Nos.1947 and 1948 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Mr. V. Ramachandran, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Standing counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT By consent of both parties, the main wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply/objection for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, which as an assessee the petitioner is eligible for. 5. According to the petitioner, for the earlier years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the respondent had issued similar notices under section 148 of the Act, and consequential notices under section 143(2) of hearing issued fixing the date for the hearing on 14.07.2003 for both the years. Subsequently, the petitioner had objected to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act and sought the reasons for re-opening the assessments on 25.06.2003 and thereafter the respondent had dropped the proceedings on 02.12.2004. 6. It is further submitted that the respondent had completed the assessment for all the years commen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.08.2006 in W.P.Nos.29611 and 29612 of 2007 before this Court and despite the oral instructions of the court to the respondent not to proceed with the assessment pending disposal of the interim applications, the respondent went ahead and completed the impugned assessments on the plea that the same was getting time barred without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The respondent is seeking to reopen the assessment on a mere change of opinion. It is further submitted that the respondent has violated the principles of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions contained under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, which requires a specific hearing and enquiry before making the assessment. 9. The respondent has filed counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, the question of assessing the income from building never arose. Earlier notice under section 148 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were issued calling for return of income and when the petitioner filed evidence for having filed the return, the proceedings were dropped. Thus the facts and circumstances for the issue of notice under Section 148 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 are entirely different compared to the assessment year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. 11. Heard Mr. Ramachandran, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Standing counsel for the respondent. 12. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... weeks fell on 11.10.2007. She further submitted that there was no oral direction from this Court to extend the say. Hence, in the absence of any stay order, the department may proceed with the assessment within the time limit allowed under the Act. She has further contended that the petitioner had withdrawn the W.P.Nos.29611 and 29612 of 2007 on 20.02.2008 and when the present writ petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner ought not have mentioned before this Court on 24.1.2008 that oral direction were issued to the Standing Counsel to inform the Offcier to await the disposal of the writ petition before proceeding with the hearing by respondent. She further contends that the respondent had passed order on the last day available un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution(Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of police, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law.Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
