Income Tax Officer,Ward 2(2), Circle-2,O/O.jcit Range-2 v. M/S.g.r.associates

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Palaniammal Palaniappan Income Tax Officer,Ward 2(2), Circle-2,O/o.JCIT Range-2,No.3, Gandhi Road,Salem-636 007. vs. ..Petitioner ..Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari, calling for the records relating to the Noticeissued by the respondent in ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009408121(1)for the AY 2011-2012 dated 24.03.208 and dispatched on06.04.2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, The notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short) issued bythe respondent in proceedings dated 24.03.2018 for theassessment year 2011-2012 is under challenge in the present writpetition. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writpetitioner mainly contended that the notice impugned issuedunder Section 148 of the Act is beyond the period of limitationof six years from the end of the relevant assessment year andtherefore, the impugned notice itself is null and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The respondent has no jurisdiction to issue noticein view of the period of limitation contemplated under Section147 of the Act and the writ petition is filed on the sole groundthat the reasons for reopening is yet to be furnished to theassessee in the present case. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent, contended that as per the principleslaid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs. IncomeTax Officer and Others [259 ITR 19], the assessee has to filereturns and the objections thereon regarding the proceedingsinitiated under Section 147 of the Act. Only after following theprinciples laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKNDriveshafts (India) Ltd (cited supra), the petitioner would bein a position to know on what basis the reopening of assessmentinitiated under Section 148 of the Act and therefore, the writpetition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent with reference to the limitation made asubmission that the Income Tax Officer sent a complaint to theSenior Postmaster, Salem in letter dated 01.06.2018 regardingservice of notice under Section 148 issued from the Office ofthe respondent on 28.03.2018. The Senior Postmaster, Salem, HPOsent a reply on 04.06.2018 stating that the letter wasdispatched and further, the Income Tax Officer issued a letterto the Postmaster on 10.02.2020 and the bills are also enclosed.In order to establish the said documents, an additional typedset of paper is also filed by the respondent. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, if at allthe ground regarding the limitation exists, then the petitioneris at liberty to raise the same before the Authority Competentand certainly not before this Court. 7. The notice under Section 148 of the Act, which isimpugned in the present writ petition, reveals that therespondent has reason to believe that the income chargeable totax for the assessment year 2011-2012 has escaped assessmentwithin the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 8. Thus the procedures as contemplated in case of GKNDriveshafts (India) Ltd (cited supra) is to be followed for thepurpose of further adjudication and this Court is of an opinionthat the present writ petition is premature. 9. The writ against a notice is not entertainable in aroutine manner. Undoubtedly, a notice can be challenged if theauthority issued such notice has no competence of jurisdictionor if the notice is issued beyond the period of limitation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The notice under Section 148 of the Act, which isimpugned in the present writ petition, reveals that therespondent has reason to believe that the income chargeable totax for the assessment year 2011-2012 has escaped assessmentwithin the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 8. Thus the procedures as contemplated in case of GKNDriveshafts (India) Ltd (cited supra) is to be followed for thepurpose of further adjudication and this Court is of an opinionthat the present writ petition is premature. 9. The writ against a notice is not entertainable in aroutine manner. Undoubtedly, a notice can be challenged if theauthority issued such notice has no competence of jurisdictionor if the notice is issued beyond the period of limitation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. However, in the present case, the respondent hasfiled certain documents to establish that the notice was issuedwithin the period of limitation and an additional typed set ofpaper is also filed. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to raisethe point of limitation before the authority with relevantdocuments and evidences and the Authority Competent is wellwithin his power to adjudicate the same and take decision onmerits and in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, the writ petitionstands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrarSvnToIncome Tax Officer,Ward 2(2), Circle-2,O/o.JCIT Range-2,No.3, Gandhi Road,Salem-636 007.+1 CC to M/s.G.R. Associates sr 26095.+1 CC to Mr.A.P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel sr 25393.WP No.12793 of 2018SVI(CO)SP(08/07/2021)