Wp/1675/2005 Of Mohan Lal Jain v. Asstt.commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors

K^ s. HEGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR ORAL ORDER(Passed on 26th June 2Q06) -^- These writ petitions were presented in this Court on 20Aprii 2005caliing in question the iegaiity of the notice (Annexute-P/8) dated 30thIVtarch 2005 issued under Sectlon 148 Income Tax Act 1961, (for short'the Act') proposing to reopen the assessment.It appears that ssnce thisCourt had not stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the impugnednotlce (Annexure-P/8), the Assessing Offscer reopened the case andpassed[assessmerst][ orders.][ At][ the][ time][ of][ hearing,][ Shri][ Amit][ Choudhan/,]iearned Standlng CounseE appearing for the income Tax Departmentwouid submit that the assessment so made by the Assessing Officer wassubsequently annuiied on 29.05.2006 by the Commlssioner of income Tax(AppeaEs).!n view ofthis deveiopment, In my considered opinion, there Isno/need to adjudicate upon the legaiity of the impugned notice.dated30.03.2005. Nevertheiess, !earned counsel for the petitioner wouEd submitthat Annexure-P/8 was ex fscie iliegai and, therefore,it shouidbecondemned as iilegal.A Couft undertakes adjudlcation of a lis forresoSution only in order to grant a reiief to an aggrieved party and wouid,nay, shouid not undertake adjudication of any Issue or point as anacademic matter. That Is the weii settSed posltlon in law. As on today, inview of the development noted supra, it cannot be said that the petitloneris an aggrieved party, because, the reassessment made by the assessingofflcer which was agalnst the petitloners* interest was .annuEled by theCommlssionerofEncomeTax(Appeais)himselfvideorderdated26.03.2002.Looking from any angle, there is not need to declde thesewrit petitlons on merit.They are accordingEy dismlssed as unnecessaiy.Nocosts.1Sd/-Chief Justice