SMRITI KEDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner, who had all along filed IT returns in Kolkata, including return for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 and is assessed at Kolkata, has challenged the notice under S. 148 of the IT Act ("Act" for short) dt. 28th March, 2006 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 (for short the "assessment year") issued by the ITO, Ward-29(3), New Delhi, the respondent No. 2 (for short "the said respondent") and the notices which, according to her, are consequential, principally on the ground that as there was no order of transfer of assessment records of the petitioner from Kolkata to New Delhi under S. 127 of the Act, the said respondent had no jurisdiction and authority to assume jurisdiction over the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS , as it appears from the petition, are that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the petitioner carried on activity of an investor in shares and earned long-term capital gains, speculation profit, dividend and interest income. During the said previous year, the income and gains were invested in repayment of loans and for purchase of a residential flat at New Delhi. On 13th Oct., 1999, the petitioner filed the IT return for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 before the ITO, Ward-18(4), Kolkata, who at the relevant point of time, had jurisdiction over her. The said ITO for the said assessment year did not issue notice either under S. 142(1) or under S. 143(2) of the Act. Since August, 2001, after effecting structural changes in the IT Department at Kolkata, the ITO, Ward-29(2), Kolkata, the respondent No. 3, has been having jurisdiction over the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 too neither issued any notice nor any assessment was done on the return for the said assessment year. Therefore, the said return is pending. During the pendency of the assessment of the return for the said assessment year, the petitioner received the impugned notice under S. 148 dt. 28th March, 2006 wherein it has been alleged that the said respondent had reasons to believe that the income of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the said assessment year had escaped assessment within the meaning of S. 147 of the Act. Therefore, the said respondent proposed to "assess" the same and directed the petitioner to file return for the said assessment year.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, since no order was passed under S. 127 of the Act transferring her assessment records either from Kolkata to New Delhi or from New Delhi to Kolkata, the impugned notice under S. 148 and all subsequent notices pursuant thereto are arbitrary, without jurisdiction and illegal. Moreover, since return was submitted on 13th Oct., 1999, in view of the second proviso to the S. 143(2), the notice under S. 143(2), assuming same is independent of S. 148, is time-barred. That apart, in view of s. 153(1), the notice under S. 143(2) is beyond the period of limitation.