Hansa Exports Corporation v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17246 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Hansa Exports Corporation …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another …Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:Mr. S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported inthe Digest?the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer forquashing notice dated 5.3.2009 (P-4), issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, Jalandhar. Thereasons for issuance of notice have also been recorded as is evident from theperusal of the order dated 5.3.2009 (P-5). The petitioner has already raised objections dated 11.6.2009 (P-6) against issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and request has beenmade for dropping the proceedings. Those objections have been rejected bythe Assessing Authority vide order dated 15.6.2009 (P-7). It has come onrecord that the basic reason for re-opening the assessment is the status of oneShri Sanjeev Suri. It has also come on record that there was no employeremployee relationship between Shri Sanjeev Suri and the petitioner firm. The alleged allegation in the notice as well as in the reasons sheet (P-4 & P-5) isthat the claim made in respect of Keyman Insurance Policy on the life of ShriSanjeev Suri was not allowable deduction as Shri Sanjeev Suri was partner ofthe firm. On account of the mistake committed in status of the aforesaid ShriSanjeev Suri, the assessment is sought to be re-opened. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length weare of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the argumentthat the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter are without jurisdiction,is wholly without merit. It is not a case where the department is proceeding onthe basis of change of opinion. The department appears to be well within itsright to re-open the assessment as there is error apparent on the face of record.The case set up by the department would not fall within the prohibitioncontemplated for re-opening of assessment proceedings on account ofescapement of income. We have refrain ourselves from making any observation on meritbecause all the issues which the petitioner has raised before us can easily beraised before the competent authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner isrelegated to the remedy before the departmental authorities. It is made clearthat any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expressionof opinion on the merit of the case. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH)JUDGE Pkapoor