Were v. Commissioner Ofincome-Tax & Ors., 255 Itr 220And The Judgment Of The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.600 OF 2006 Jashan Textile Mills Private Limitedvs.The Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax 4(2), Mumbai & anr. Petitioner Respondents Mr.S.N.Inamdar with Mr.Pramod Y. Vaidyai/b.Mr.A.K.Jasani for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Chopra for the respondents. P.C. CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 13th March, 2006 Heard Mr.S.N.Inamdar, the learned counsel for thepetitioner. consequential notice dated 22nd August, 2005, the roving and fishing enquiry cannot be made. 4. The objections raised by the petitioner overruled by the speaking order dated 16th February,2006. were 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner re-iteratedthe objections that were raised by the petitioner inresponse to the notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner alsorelied upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in the case of Vipan Khanna v. Commissioner ofIncome-tax & ors., 255 ITR 220and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M.Chellapan, 198 CTR 490. 6. We considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the petitioner and in our considered view, it cannotbe said that the issuance of notice under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act suffers from any patent error ofjurisdiction.7. In its order dated 16th February, 2006, disposing ofthe objections raised by the petitioner, the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Mumbai recordedthat Section 80IA(9) specifically bars any such benefitto the assessee whereby he can claim any deductionalready availed of under Section 80IA under any otherprovisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading,"C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes". Theassessing officer also noticed that reliance on Section80AB does not support the claim of the assessee and thatthere is no question of roving enquiry but the queries raised were material to the determination of escaped income. the Act thereafter is served on the assessee within thestipulated of 12 months, the assessment to serve undersection 143 would come to an end and the matter becomesfinal. In our considered view, the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vipan Khanna cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. In so far as the judgement of Madras High Court inthe case of M.Chellapan, we find that the Madras HighCourt relied upon the judgement of the Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court in Vipan Khanna and held that the issueraised in the case before them did not give rise to anysubstantial question of law. This decision, too, is ofnot much help to the petitioner.11. Since in our opinion the notice under section 148does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, we are satisfied that no interference is called for in the said notice in extraordinary jurisdiction. 12. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)