Wp/33791/2010 Of Maytas Infra Ltd v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33791 of 2010 July 26, 2011 Between: Maytax Infra Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad, represented by itsGeneral Manager (Legal & Contracts) … Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I,Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33791 of 2010 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, an incorporated entity, is an assessee in theterritorial limits of the second respondent. For the assessmentyear 2003-04, they filed return. They declared Rs.36,25,897/- asincome. It appears that they also filed minimum alternative taxunder Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Thereturn was scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Act makingadditions and determining the income at Rs.10,07,36,280/-. Inappeal, the petitioner got part relief and the income stood reducedto Rs.5,48,58,666/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitionerpreferred second appeal, which is pending before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The first respondent issued notice under Section 148 of theAct proposing to reassess the income. After receiving notice, thepetitioner filed return of income repeating the same income asoriginally declared and also requested the first respondent tofurnish reasons which were furnished. The petitioner then filedobjections on 22.10.2010. Even before they could be considered,the present writ petition is filed assailing the notice dated26.3.2010 issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of theAct. This Court directed the Senior Standing Counsel to filecounter affidavit. A counter affidavit is filed. The petitioner filedreply affidavit. As the matter is being disposed of in the mannerindicated herein below, there is no need to sum up the contents ofthe counter affidavit or reply affidavit. It is brought to our notice that the second respondent hasalready passed assessment order on 30.6.2011 pursuant to theimpugned notice under Section 148 of the Act. As the assessmentorder was already passed and the petitioner has an effectivealternative remedy of appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) under Section 246A of the Act, we do not propose to gointo various other issues raised in the writ petition. We leave openall those issues to be raised before the CIT (Appeals), Hyderabad. The writ petition, with the above observations, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 26, 2011YS _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)