9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant portion of the order is quoted below: "It may be pointed out that from the record, it emerges out that during pendency of writ petition, a notice dated 3.11.2014 was sent to the petitioner by the present Assessing Officer in which information has been required to be submitted on several points. The said notice is cryclostyled format which is reportedly sent to the assesses who are manually selected for scrutiny and does not conform to requirements as prescribed in Section 142 and 143 and seek to hold a roving enquiry to fish out the material against the assessee. A perusal of Annexure SA-3 annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2015 shows that in response to the notice dated 3.11.2014, the petitioner preferred written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents and we find force in the submissions of the petitioner that local address was inserted deliberately to create jurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with the opposite party No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 exceeded its jurisidiction, which not only vitiates the impugned show cause notice but the entire proceedings. In these circumstances, the entire proceedings being ab initio illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 143 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 11.9.2013 is quashed. As the notice has already been quashed, consequential orders, if any, are also quashed." 4. Facts of the case are that the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 is wholly without jurisdiction and quashed the same, inasmuch as consequential orders were also quashed, submission of Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is that the subsequent year's notice would not have been issued from Lucknow. Her next submission is that the entire proceeding vitiated in law once this Court considered and examined the change of address and jurisdiction to issue assessment notice. 6. On the other hand, Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that this is not the proceeding for the assessment year 2012-13. It is the assessment year 2013-14 for which this contempt application is not maintainable. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the preliminary objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
