Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltda v. Income Tax Officer, Sangrur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108Civil Writ Petition No.9916 of 2017Date of Decision: May 09, 2017 Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltda Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Sangrur ... Responden CORAM:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR/INDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Sunil Mukhi, Advocate andMr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ## AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-assessee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quasning thenotice dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by Income lax Officer(Headquarter Sangrur) under Section 148 of the Income lax Act, 1961,(for snort, the Act) vide wnicn It was directed to submit return of IncomeIn a prescribed form for assessment year 2010-11.2.it nas been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner thatvide order dated 06.04.2011 appended as Annexure P-2 with thepetition, the Commissioner of Income lax, Patiala in exercise of powersunder section 12/(2)(a) of the Act, had transferred the jurisdiction of theassessee from sangrur to Central Circle, Patiala. It was furthersubmitted that since then, the jurisdiction is being exercised by the saidAssessing Officer and the case has not been re-transferred andno fresn order under Section 12/7 of the Act has been passed. It was urged that in such circumstances, the initiation of re-assessmentproceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act by the respondent waswithout jurisdiction. Learned counsel arguea_ that threpresentation/objection against the impugned notice has been movedby the petitioner on 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-4) which has not beendecided so far. It was prayed that before proceeding further in thematter, the respondent be directedto decide therepresentation/objection (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner In accordance withlaw. 3.After nearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing thepresent petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, we dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent totake a decision on the representation/objection dated 03.04.20172Annexure P-4) moved by the petitioner, In accordance with law bypassing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of nearingto it within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certifiedcopy of the order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE May 09, 2017sonia gugnanl (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable’ Yes/NoYes/No