Arvind Tiku v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

CWP No. 5006 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5006 of 2016 Date of Decision: 16.3.2016 Arvind Tiku ....Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1(1), Gurgaon and others ...Respondents. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG. PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of a bunch of six petitions bearingCWP Nos. 4961, 4969, 4993, 5006, 5017 and 5019 of 2016 asaccording to learned counsel for the petitioner, the questions of law andfacts involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are beingextracted from CWP No. 5006 of 2016. 2.In CWP No. 5006 of 2016 filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ inthe nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 30.3.2015(Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.1 under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2004-05. Further, a writ of prohibition has been sought restraining the respondents from taking any further action in pursuance to the noticedated 30.3.2015 (Annexure P-1). 3.The petitioner was issued a notice dated 30.3.2015(Annexure P-1) under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year2004-05 for initiating assessment proceedings. He sent a letter dated23.4.2015 (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.1 stating that he is a Non-Resident for the purpose of Act and there was no income chargeable totax which could be said to have escaped assessment. He also fileddetails (Annexure P-3) regarding his stay in India for the past years.Another letter dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure P-4) was filed by the petitionerbefore respondent No.1 giving the details of his stay in India along withpassport. In continuation to the letter, Annexure P-4, the petitioner filedanother letter dated 11.5.2015 (Annexure P-5) making submissions onSection 6 of the Act. The file of the petitioner was transferred torespondent No.2 and accordingly a fresh notice dated 24.9.2015(Annexure P-6) under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to thepetitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) tothe said notice. Thereafter, the notice dated 13.1.2016 (Annexure P-8)was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by respondent No.2 to whichthe petitioner filed reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9). However, noresponse has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petitions. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner filed reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the notice dated13.1.2016 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 142(1) of the Act beforerespondent No.2 which is pending and no action has so far been takenthereon. 5.After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the present CWP No. 5006 of 2016 -3- writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to take adecision on the reply dated 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-9), in accordance withlaw by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE March 16, 2016gbs (RAJ RAHUL GARG) JUDGE