Chandrahas Jindel v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, New Revenuebuilding, Statue Circle, Janpath, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writs No. 25020/2018 Chandrahas Jindel S/o Shri Suraj Karan Jindel, Aged About 62Years, R/o G-14, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, New RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Janpath, Jaipur-302005Building, Statue Circle, Janpath, Jaipur-302005 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Room No. 320, Iiird Floor,New C.r. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005New C.r. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), New C.r. Building, StatueCircle, Jaipur-302005Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR 13/11/2018 Order The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner forseeking a direction to quash and set aside the notice issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt. 27[th] March, 2018 andorder dt. 18[th] October, 2018 (Annex. 9) disposing of the objectionsraised by the assessee with regard to issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner is also feeling aggrieved by order dt. 30[th] October,2018 (Annex. 11) disposing of the objections of the petitioner inresponse to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961, after supplying the reasons for reopening theassessment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that therespondent has acted in total disregard to the requirement ofSection 124 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.Counsel submitted that the petitioner was an assessee in WardNo. 2 (3), Jaipur whereas impugned action is taken by the IncomeTax Officer of Ward No. 6 (2), Jaipur. Counsel further submitted that the very basis of reopeningthe assessment is illegal as petitioner had already filed the returnfor the assessment year 2011-12 and the Department has takenan erroneous view that petitioner has not at all filed the return.Counsel further submitted that the alleged transaction in respectto the purchase of property by the petitioner avoiding the tax waswell explained while filing the returns and yet opinion has beenformed that petitioner is liable to the reassessment proceedings.Counsel submitted that the Income Tax Authorities must act inbona-fide manner while reopening the assessment. Counselsubmitted that initially the reasons were not supplied forreopening the assessment and after much delay, the reasons weresupplied and the authority has rejected the objections in amechanical manner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income TaxOfficer and Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72, has laid downthe law that while issuing the notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, the noticee is required to have the reasons forissuing the notice and such reasons should be furnished within areasonable time. Counsel for the petitioner has relied up on para 5 of thejudgment passed in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra), which reads as under:- Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income TaxOfficer and Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72, has laid downthe law that while issuing the notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, the noticee is required to have the reasons forissuing the notice and such reasons should be furnished within areasonable time. Counsel for the petitioner has relied up on para 5 of thejudgment passed in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra), which reads as under:- “We see no justifiable reason to interfere with theorder under Challenge. However, we clarify that when anotice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act isissued, the proper course of action for the notice is tofile return and if he so desires, to seek reasons forissuing notices. The assessing officer is bound tofurnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt ofreasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections toissuance of notice and the assessing Officer is bound todispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In theinstant case, as the reasons have been disclosed inthese proceedings, the assessing officer has to disposeof the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order,before proceeding with the assessment in respect of theabovesaid five assessment year.” I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. This Court, finds that the requirement of furnishing reasonshas been complied with in the instant case and further theobjections, so filed by the petitioner-assessee have been dealtwith by the Assessing Officer and a speaking order has beenpassed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner thatreply to notice has not been dealt with by the Assessing Officerand the impugned order cannot be termed as a speaking order,this Court finds that in the order which has been passed by theAssessing Officer, while considering the objections of thepetitioner, proper reasons have been assigned. The issue ofjurisdiction raised by counsel for the petitioner has also been dealtwith and further the ‘reason to believe’ has been found by theAssessing Officer in respect of transaction/sale of the property ofthe petitioner where tax is not said to be paid. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiacannot interfere at the stage of deciding the objections by the Assessing Officer after the compliance of giving notice underSection 148 and taking note of the objections of the assessee. Counsel submitted that there is a violation of Section 124 (3)of the Income Tax Act as the Income Tax Officer of ward No. 6(2)did not even have the territorial jurisdiction to issue the impugnednotice. This Court on perusal of Section 124 (3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 finds that the assessee cannot call in question, thenotice which is served in sub Section (1) of Section 142 or subSection (2) of Section 143. The objection of counsel for thepetitioner is not sustainable, in view of the language in the Sectionitself. This Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra) has already laiddown the parameters, where interference can be made by theHigh Court. This Court, does not find any error in the order passed bythe Authorities. The present writ petition lacks merit and the sameis dismissed, accordingly. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Monika/49