RANINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions, the petitioner has sought quashing of assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act') dated 23.03.2016 for the assessment year 2006- 2007 (in CWP No.5813 of 2018) and for the assessment year 2007-2008 (in CWP No.5872 of 2018) (Annexure P-1) and has further put to challenge the assessment orders dated 14.02.2018 (Annexure P-17), so also notices dated 14.02.2018 under Sec. 156 of the I.T. Act and under Sec. 271(1)(c) read with Sec. 274 of the I.T. Act (Annexures P-18 and P-19), for the assessment year 2006-2007 (in CWP No.5813 of 2018) and for the assessment year 2007-2008 (in CWP No.5872 of 2018) respectively.

(2.) The petitioner had filed return on 02.11.2006 for the assessment year 2006-2007 declaring income of Rs. 2,15,250.00 and filed return on 13.10.2018 for the assessment year 2007-2008 declaring income of Rs. 2,89,914/-. The returns were processed under Sec. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Notice under Sec. 148 dated 23.03.2016 was issued for reassessment, but the petitioner did not receive the said notice. The revenue alleged that the notice under Sec. 142(1) dated 25.07.2016 and dated 07.11.2016 had not been received back undelivered and that notice dated 25.07.2016 was accompanied by the 'reasons to believe'. Unless, there is compliance of notice under Sec. 148, there could be no occasion for supply of 'reasons to believe'. On 22.11.2016, another notice under Sec. 144 of the I.T. Act was issued to him as to why the assessment should not be made ex parte with the proposal for addition of income of Rs. 15,96,74,220.00 and Rs. 31,40,29,200.00. The allegations in the notice dated 22.11.2016 as per 'reasons to believe' were that the petitioner is the settler of 'The Jacaranda Trust' and is beneficial owner holding 100% shareholding in the companies, namely M/s Mulwala Holding Limited, M/s Limerlock International Ltd., M/s Chillingham Holdings Ltd. and M/s Allworth Venture Holdings Ltd. That the assessment by the Trust were held by him he being the beneficiary. The petitioner received notice dated 22.11.2016 and attended the proceedings denying each and every allegation and also further specifically denying the receipt of any of the earlier notices including the notice under Sec. 148 dated 23.03.2016. Referring to sub-section 6 of Sec. 78 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Evidence Act'), the petitioner invited attention of the Department that the trust deed at Sr. No.13 was a typed copy of deed bearing no signatures and none of the documents had any sanctity in law they not being authenticated or certified by the legal keeper thereof, as contemplated by law and therefore, the revenue should supply legal documents to enable the petitioner to file objections to the proceedings. Still without complying with the said legal demand, a notice dated 16.12.2016 was issued to him as to why the assessment should not be finalized by 20.12.2016.

(3.) On 20.12.2016, the petitioner repeated his request and reiterated his stand that the notices and the documents, i.e. authenticated were not received by the petitioner and would definitely file his returns/ objections to 'reasons to believe' on receipt thereof. Respondent No.2, however, continued to ask the petitioner to file return/objection without complying with the legal demand for the relevant legal documents and the proceedings went on.