PAVAN KISHANCHAND TULSIANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Special Civil Applications are filed by same assessee and on account of issue involved being common these Special Civil Applications are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common judgment by narrating the facts of each case chronologically hereinbelow.

(2.) Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality of re- opening of the assessment in all these petitions by issuance of impugned notices and passing of the impugned orders raising several contentions.

(3.) Petitioner is a Director / Partner in various firms and derives income from various sources. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, petitioner filed the return of income by declaring his income to the tune of Rs.1,00,85,160.00 and paid tax to the tune of Rs.33,45,909.00. A notice dtd. 30/3/2018 under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) was issued for re-assessing the income and called upon the petitioner to file his return of income in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. On 29/8/2018, the assessee filed the reply denying about the income having escaped assessment and contending original income of return is once again offered as income in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act. Petitioner sought for reasons supporting the action of re-opening of the assessment / re-assessment. By communication dtd. 17/9/2018, the reasons for re-opening the assessment came to be provided. Petitioner appeared before the respondent authority and also made oral as well as written submissions raising several contentions and specifically contending the assessment proceedings could not be re-opened after 6 years and that too without any justification and sought for dropping of the proceedings. The contentions raised in the notice for re-opening came to be reiterated and order dtd. 26/11/2018 came to be passed which came to be communicated and received by petitioner on 5/12/2018 and surprisingly, yet another notice was served upon petitioner dtd. 6/12/2018 directing the petitioner to remain present for further hearing on 12/12/2018 and conveyed that in no circumstance, adjournment would be granted. Petitioner accordingly, represented before the authority, but then, was constrained to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned notice dtd. 30/3/2018 as also the impugned order dtd. 26/11/2018. In the preliminary hearing which took place before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice this Court has passed an order on 12/12/2018 which reads as under :