VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the notices dt. 4th Feb., 2005, 5th Jan., 2005 and 31st March, 2004, the copies of which have been annexed as Annex. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that the return for the asst. yr. 1997-98 was filed by the petitioner which was accepted by the assessing authority and intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was received by the petitioner on 15th July, 1998. The petitioner has further alleged that on 2nd April, 2004, the petitioner received a notice dt. 31st March, 2004 issued by opposite party No. 3 under Section 148 of the IT Act in respect to asst. yr. 1997-98 and thereafter the petitioner filed the return on 29th April, 2004. The petitioner has further alleged that opposite party No. 3 again issued notice on 5th Jan., 2005 under Section 142 of the Act requiring the petitioner to appear on 17th Jan., 2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings were not intimated to the petitioner in spite of the letter dt. 17th Jan., 2005. He further submits that the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued after expiry of the period of four years from the end of the asst. yr. 1997-98. He further submits that as no reason has been assigned in the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the notice deserves to be quashed. He has relied upon the decisions in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 88 ITD 273 (NULL ), [2005 ] 273 ITR 16 (AT ), (2004 ) 82 TTJ(ITAT ) 765 , Man Mohan Singh v. Asstt. CIT [1993 ] 203 ITR 74 (All ) and Sohan Lal Singhania v. ITO [1992 ] 194 ITR 519 (All ). He further submits that in spite of the letter dt. 17th Jan., 2005, no reason has been assigned to the petitioner by the assessing authority.

(3.) Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that the application dt. 17th Jan., 2005 filed as Annex. No. 6 to the writ petition is not available on the record and in compliance of the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, the return was submitted by the petitioner in April, 2004 and the assessing authority shall decide the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioner. He further submits that before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessing authority has recorded the reasons on the file.