SAVITA GARG Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER -affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be placed on record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri Prashant Chandra submits that in view of the averments made in the counter -affidavit, it is clear that notice under Section 147 of the Act could not have been issued because there was no material with the assessing authority making him to form a reasonable belief as required under Section 147 to issue a notice. Besides, the other contention that the petitioner being assessed at Delhi, could not be subjected to the jurisdiction under Section 147 or 148 of the Income Tax Act by the assessing authority at Lucknow. He asserts that this information was given to the assessing officer but the assessing officer, instead of referring the matter to the Chief Commissioner for deciding the question of jurisdiction, has proceeded to make the final assessment in respect of assessment year 1996 -97 and that he has also issued notice with respect to assessment year 1997 -98 and intends to issue notices for other assessment years also.

(3.) SO far the issuance of notice under Section 147 in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Act is concerned, we do not find any reason for adjudication on this issue in this writ petition at this stage as we intend to refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner, income -tax for deciding the question of jurisdiction first.