MAYAWATI Vs. CIT DELHI CENTRAL I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition assails the legality of proceedings initiated by the Respondents under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act for short) on the premise that the Assessing Officer (hereinafter AO) has reason to believe that income of the Petitioner, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. In such an event, Section 148 of the IT Act requires the AO to serve the Petitioner with a Notice requiring her to furnish a Return of her income. It is mandated by Section 149 of the IT Act that this Notice must be issued within six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (which in this case is 2001-2002) since the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rupees one lakh or more for that year. The prayers in the Petition are for quashing (a) the Notice dated 25. 3. 2008 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act; (b) the Notices dated 25. 6. 2008 and 3. 11. 2008 issued under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act; and (c) the Order dated 27. 11. 2008.

(2.) THE factual sequence is short and uncontroverted. The AO had passed an Order on 24. 3. 2008 stating that he has reason to believe that the Petitioner had not declared full and true particulars of her income. On 25. 3. 2008, the CIT, Central Range-III, recorded the approval to this proposal for initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO has issued a Notice dated 25. 3. 2008 under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act to the Petitioner at her Delhi address, viz. C-1/11, Humayun Road, New Delhi " 110 003. Mr. Salve contends that, purely as a coincidence, the Petitioner had dispatched a letter dated 25. 3. 2008 to the Revenue, stating that since she has become the Chief Minister of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Council, she had shifted her residence to Property No. 3, Survey No. 105, Nehru Road, Cantonment, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh which should be taken as a record for service and of all correspondence in respect to income-tax proceedings. This letter was received in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner (Income Tax), Circle-II, New Delhi (the AO) on 31. 3. 2008.

(3.) IT is not controverted that an Inspector of the Revenue endeavoured to serve this Notice on the Petitioner on 29. 3. 2008 at her Humayun Road, New Delhi residence, in the course of which he was informed that she had shifted her residence to 3, Nehru Road, Cantonment, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh where the Notice should now be delivered. It was in these circumstances that the said Inspector dispatched the Notice dated 25. 3. 2008 by Speed Post on 29. 3. 2008 to the said Lucknow address furnished to him. The original records have been produced and we have perused the postal receipt which substantiates the Report of the Inspector. It appears that the Petitioner"s letter dated 25. 3. 2008, informing the Respondent of her concealed income which has escaped assessment, requires action under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act.