Kuldip Kumar Goel v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income - Tax Circle 1 (1),New Delhi & Anr

$~25 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 184/2020 KULDIP KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Mr. Rahul Sateejaand Mr. Deepak Thakur, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 1 (1),NEW DELHI & ANR...... Respondents ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Deepak Anand and Mr. VipulAgarwal, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%09.01.2020 C.M. No. 552/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 184/2020 & C.M. No. 551/2020 3. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the noticedated 27.03.2019, issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act (hereinafter ‘the Act’) and the consequential assessment order andremand notice dated 28.12.2019 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi.The Petitioner also seeks a direction that the Respondents be restrained fromtaking any coercive steps to enforce the aforesaid demand. 4. The Petitioner was issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 27.03.2019. In terms of Section 148 (1), the Petitioner was obliged to file hisincome tax return within thirty days, which he did not.Though thePetitioner has not disclosed this fact, but admittedly, the Petitioner wasprovided with the reasons for re-opening of the assessment for the AY 2012-13. The Petitioner was further issued a notice on 18.09.2019 under Section142 (1) of the Act, requiring him to produce the books etc. and to respond tothe queries.The Petitioner for the first time sent a communication on04.10.2019 i.e. after around six months of issuance of the notice underSection 148 and that too without filing a return, raising the issue ofjurisdiction of the notice issuing authority. The reassessment proceedingswere transferred to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) on 16.10.2019.A further notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 142 (1) of the Acton 10.12.2019 by the jurisdictional AO. The same was responded to by thePetitioner on 16.12.2019. Yet another notice was issued to the Petitioner on18.12.2019 under Section 142 (1) of the Act. A further notice was issued on22.12.2019 under the same provision. Eventually, the AO has passed theimpugned reassessment order which is also assailed before us. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the noticeunder Section 148 has been issued by an Officer who is not theJurisdictional Officer. Learned counsel for the Respondents who appears onadvance notice points out that since the sale transaction in respect of theimmovable property, which forms the subject matter of the notice underSection 148 of the Act and which is also reflected from the reasons for re-opening, was situated in Noida, the Officer at Noida had the jurisdiction toissue the said notice and the proceedings were thereafter transferred to theJurisdictional AO. In this regard, the Respondents have placed reliance on 5. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the noticeunder Section 148 has been issued by an Officer who is not theJurisdictional Officer. Learned counsel for the Respondents who appears onadvance notice points out that since the sale transaction in respect of theimmovable property, which forms the subject matter of the notice underSection 148 of the Act and which is also reflected from the reasons for re-opening, was situated in Noida, the Officer at Noida had the jurisdiction toissue the said notice and the proceedings were thereafter transferred to theJurisdictional AO. In this regard, the Respondents have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abhishek Jain v. Income Tax Officer Ward55(1), New Delhi and ANR. in W.P.(C) 11844/2016 decided on 02.06.2018.Learned counsel for the Respondents points out that since the Petitioner didnot file a return in response to the notice under Section 148 (1) of the Act, hecannot have a grievance with regard to his objections not being disposed of.6. The notice under Section 148 (1) was issued to the Petitioner as early ason 27.03.2019, he did not respond to that notice for over six months nor heinvoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the notice on the groundof jurisdiction. He responded to the notice for the first time on 04.10.2019.The conduct of the Petitioner in not filing the return, he was obligated to, inresponse to the notice under Section 148 (1) and disregarding the noticeunder Section 148 of the Act, in our view, disentitles the Petitioner to grantof any relief in the present proceedings.The Supreme Court in GKNDriveshafts (India Ltd.) v. Income Tax Officer 259 ITR 19 (SC)hasclarified that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act isissued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a return and if heso desire, to seek reasons for issuing notices. 7. We therefore dismiss this petition and leave it to the Petitioner to pursueall his pleas in his statutory appeal before CIT (A) against the impugnedassessment order.The Petitioner’s grievance shall be dealt with by CITAppeals. VIPIN SANGHI, J JANUARY 09, 2020nk SANJEEV NARULA, J