Wp/17321/2006 Of M/S. Globe Electricals v. Income Tax Officer

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.17321 OF 2006 Dated 12-02-2007 Between: M/s Globe Electricals …Petitioner And Income-Tax Officer and another …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.17321 OF 2006 O R D E R(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a writ petition challenging the order ofassessment made under Section 144 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”). It appears that after returnswere filed by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner wastaken for scrutiny. Notices were issued to him continuouslyfrom 23-05-1997 till 17-03-1998. In all about seven noticeswere given to him. In response to the noticedated 08-12-1997, the authorized representativeof the petitioner appeared before the Assessing Officer on16-12-1997 and sought time to produce the informationrequired by the Department. He did not appear thereafterand the petitioner changed his authorized representativeand filed power of attorney in favour of Sri M.S.V.RamanaMurthy, Chartered Accountant, on 16-12-1997 authorizinghim to represent the petitioner before the Income-Taxauthorities in connection with the assessments, but he didnot appear and there was no response from the side of thepetitioner. The Assessing Officer again issued notice dated18-02-1998 giving a final opportunity to the petitioner toproduce the books of accounts, registers and vouchers and posted the case for hearing on 27-02-1998. The petitionerwas also informed that the assessment had to be completedby 31-03-1998 otherwise, the claim would be time-barred. Inspite of it, the petitioner did not appear. Perhaps it wasthe intention of the petitioner to see that the mattergets time-barred, therefore, he did not appear inspite of several notices. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that afterthe Department decides to complete the assessment underSection 144 of the Act, another notice is required to begiven. The impugned order itself shows that notices underSections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act for production ofrecords and appearance were also issued to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we do not find anyillegality in the order passed by the authorities. Therefore,the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Noorder as to costs. Nazki,J) ___________________________(Bilal Dated 12[th] February, 2007 ____________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao,J) vrn