Wp/667/2010 Of M/S. Sanap Agroanimals Pvt. Ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, And Ors

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.667 OF 2010 M/s. Sanap Agroanimals Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for respondents. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. :- 1.In the present case, by an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik, Circle-1, an assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06 has been reopened by a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.The reasons for reopening the assessment are that during the course of the assessment year in question, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source, but had failed to deduct it in respect of expenses incurred towards clearing, forwarding and shipping charges, cold storage and transportation. 3.The reopening of assessment was within a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year. During the course of the hearing, counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the issue as to whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on these payment or otherwise, was not considered in the original order of assessment. 4.In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interdict the exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer at the threshold. The reasons which have been furnished cannot be regarded as extraneous to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 147. At this stage, we are not concerned with the merits or the grounds which have been urged in support of the reopening of assessment. We do not express any opinion, for that matter, on the defence of the assessee on merits. Counsel appearing for the revenue states that a reassessment order has already been passed in the meantime. The assessee, it is needless to add, will be entitled to espouse remedies available against the order of reassessment in law. The petition is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)