Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalnadhar v. Jagdish Raj Chauhan, Suhagwanti & Gurbachan Singh (Aop), H

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 913 of 2008. Date of Decision : 5.3.2009. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalnadhar. Versus ....Appellant Jagdish Raj Chauhan, Suhagwanti & Gurbachan Singh (AOP), H.No. 18,Tagore Nagar, Gujral Chowk, Jalnadhar. ....Respondent CORAM:Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. KheharHon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh Present :Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate,for the appellant. J.S. Khehar. J. (Oral) During the course of hearing of the instant appeal,learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue acknowledged, that the noticeunder Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred toas “the Act”) was issued on 8.9.1999 and thereafter by an order dated12.10.1999, the Assessing Officer sent intimation under Section 143 (1) (a)of the Act. It is therefore, that we required the learned counsel for the appellant to assist us whether in terms of the decision rendered by theSupreme Court in CIT versus Gujarat Electricity Board, 260 ITR 84whether it was open to the appellant-Revenue to issue intimation underSection 143(1)(a) of the Act after he had already issued notice for regularassessment under Section 143(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairlyacknowledges, that in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court ITA No. 913 of 2008. in CIT versus Gujarat Electricity Board (supra), after issuing notice forregular assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act, it was not open to theAssessing Officer to send an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.Thus viewed, it is apparent, that the intimation as well as the consequentialaction taken by the appellant-Revenue against the respondent-assessee onthe basis of an un-authorised intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act,cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Since no other submission has been advanced by thelearned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, we are of the view that theinstant appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly, dismissed. (J.S. Khehar) Judge 5.3.2009.SN (Nawab Singh) Judge