IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH, JJ.
Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd – Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 12544 of 2018
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 148 - Issuance of notice - Escape of income - On 31.03.2018, which was the last date on which the limitation was to expire, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent no. 1, wherein respondent no. 1 inter-alia stated that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax qua AY 2011-2012 had escaped assessment.
Finding of the Court:
Case is made out for interference at this stage itself. According to us, relegating a party to an alternative remedy is a self- imposed limitation which, however, does not denude the court of its powers under Article 226. The Court is duty-bound to exercise its powers under Article 226 where ever it finds that a statutory authority has exercised its jurisdiction either irregularly or acted in a matter in which it had no jurisdiction or committed a breach of the principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Preface:
1. This writ petition is directed against notice dated 31.03.2018, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’] and the sanction accorded by respondent no. 2 i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII on 29.03.2018 for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee, being aggrieved, has moved this court via the instant writ petition.
Background facts:
2. To adjudicate upon the writ petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed:
2.2. The income tax return for the assessment year [in short ‘AY’] 2010-2011 along with the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 was filed by the assessee, on 23.09.2010.
2.3. Insofar as the succeeding year was concerned, which is also the AY in issue i.e. AY 2011-2012, the income tax return was filed on 29.08.2012 by the assessee along with the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011. Returns for the aforementioned AY(s) were filed via electronic mode.
2.4. On 31.03.2018, which was the last date on which the limitation was to expire, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent no. 1, wherein respondent no. 1 inter-alia stated that he had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax qua AY 2011-2012 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to file a return in the prescribed form for the said AY as respondent no. 1 proposed to assess/re-assess the income/loss for the concerned AY.
2.5. The record shows that the assessee had, perhaps, written to respondent no. 1 on 03.04.2018 to close the reassessment proceedings as the notice under Section 148 qua AY 2011-2012 was time-barred having been served upon him after the expiry of the prescribed limitation. As indicated above, the limitation for issuance of notice expired, concededly, on 31.03.2018. This aspect finds mention in the assessee’s communication dated 23.04.2018 addressed to respondent no. 1. Besides this, the said communication went on to state, that without prejudice to its contention that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was time-barred, it had enclosed a copy of the income tax return qua AY 2011-2012.
2.6. In addition to the aforesaid, the assessee also called upon respondent no. 1 to furnish a copy of the reasons based on which he believed that the assessee’s income for AY 2011-2012 had escaped assessment. The communication concluded with a request to respondent no. 1 to furnish a copy of the approval, granted by respondent no. 2, for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.
2.7. Since respondent no. 1 did not furnish a copy of the proceedings in which he had documented his reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the assessee escalated the matter, by writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [in short ‘ACIT’] vide communication dated 09.06.2018. In this communication, while flagging the issue that the assessee has not been furnished reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, reference was also made to the fact that the assessee’s case had also been picked up for initiating proceedings under Section 147 in AY 2009-2010 and AY 2010-2011 when additions amounting to Rs. 3,06,00,000/- and Rs. 2,30,62,500/- respectively had been made. Furthermore, the assessee pointed out that its share capital, which included reserves and surplus as on 31.03.2010, amounted to Rs. 3,87,78,048/-; a figure which had remained consistent since the financial year [in short ‘FY’] 2005-2006.
2.8. Even
Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha
Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District-I Calcutta and Another
Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
Mohinder Singh Gill and Others vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others
Raymond Wooden Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle XI, Range Bombay and Others
R.K. Upadhyay vs. Shanab Bhai P. Patel
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh
Sheo Nath Singh vs. Appellate ACIT
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakishtaiah and Co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.