9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ms. Archana Sinha for the respondents. Both the writ petitions raise common issues and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. 2. C. W. J. C. No. 4152 of 2009 is with respect to the assessment year 2000-01. It is directed against the notice dated June 27, 2008 (annexure 1), issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 in terms of section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), informing the petitioner of initiation of reassessment proceedings and to submit return. It is also directed against the order dated October 13, 2008 (annexure 4), whereby respondent No. 3 has rejected the petitioner's objection to annexure 1, and has held that there is no defect in the notice and the reassessment proceedings has been rightly initiated. The petitioner also challenges the notice dated January 9, 2009 (annexure 5), issued by respondent No. 3, to produce documents/papers stated therein. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office in Patna. It had submitted its return for the assessment year 2000- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as in Form No. 2 before the Registrar of Companies." 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, respondent No. 3 issued the aforesaid notice dated June 27, 2008 (annexure 1) to the petitioner in terms of section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment proceedings. The petitioner appeared through counsel, had shown cause on July 28, 2008 (annexure 3), raising preliminary objections as to the validity of initiation of the proceedings under section 148 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground of limitation and various other grounds. The same has been rejected by the impugned order dated October 13, 2008 (annexure 4), inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner's cause is covered by the provisions of section 150(1) of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings have been validly initiated to give effect to the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Patna. 6. We must at the outset note that we had, at the inception, given option to the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and appear before the learned Assessing Officer so that the matter is disposed of on the merits. It would, therefore, be open to the petitioner to raise the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted that the writ petition is premature and not maintainable on various other grounds. She has relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in ITO v. Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 338. They next submitted that the present proceeding is covered by section 150(1) of the Act which has overriding effect. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukhdayal Pahwa v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 206. Once section 150(1) is attracted, the bar of limitation or the requirements of sanction are waived. It has been lastly submitted that the decisions cited by the petitioner were with respect to cases after contest and orders had been passed with respect to preliminary issues as well as on the merits, whereas the present case is at the notice stage. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in reply submitted that the writ petition is maintainable. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1. 10. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken." 11. The scope and ambit of section 150 was considered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukhdayal Pahwa v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 206. On a consideration of the relevant provisions of law including those indicated hereinabove, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows (page 210): "Relevant provisions of the Act have been reproduced. The arguments have to be examined in the light of the provisions mentioned above and in the light of the finding of the Tribunal that the assessment was reopened and the order for reassessment was passed by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated August 31, 1970, in an appeal against the original assessment. Section 149(2) refers to section 151. Section 151, therefore, cannot be read in isolation or de hors section 149. Section 149(1) prescribed the time limit for a notice under section 148. Sub-section (2) imposes a further restriction on the Income-tax Officer so that before issuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner for the assessment year 2000-01. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the remaining issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not arise for consideration. The Assessing Officer shall proceed with the proceedings in accordance with the notice dated June 27, 2008 (annexure 1), read with the notice dated January 9, 2009 (annexure 5). We must at this stage clarify that the notice dated June 27, 2008 (annexure 1) was issued in terms of section 148 of the Act, whereas the impugned order dated October 13, 2008 (annexure 4) has been rejected on the ground that the proceedings have been initiated in terms of section 150(1) of the Act. We are of the view that misdescription of a provision of law, if any, will not adversely affect the merits of the proceedings on this count. Law is well settled that making reference of an inapplicable or irrelevant provision of law by itself does not render the proceedings illegal. The substance of the issues raised is important. In any case, the issue has now been clarified in the impugned order, and the parties will proceed accordingly. C. W. J. C. No. 4152 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed. 15. C. W. J. C. No. 4169 of 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
