RAM NIWAS CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a notice under s. 148 of the IT Act on 31st May, 2001. According to petitioner, as per s 151 of the Act it is obligatory upon the AO to record reason to the effect that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice under s. 148. As per sub- s. (2) of s. 151 unless a satisfaction is recorded over reasons recorded by the AO by the Jt. CIT, a higher authority, the notice under s. 148 cannot be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recording of reason by the AO and sanction by the higher authority are not the empty formality. It is also submitted that as per the language of s. 151 it is clear that even issuance of notice requires satisfaction of certain pre-conditions and unless and until the full compliance is given to the provision of s. 151 and in particular sub-s. (2) of s. 151 even notice cannot be issued. Therefore, the notice Annex. 1 dt. 31st May, 2001, is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC).

(3.) IN view of the above fact that the petitioner himself did not diligently conduct his case before the appropriate authority and there is a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has alternate remedy to raise his grievance before the concerned authority. This is not the fit case nor this Court should entertain the writ petition against a show-cause notice issued on 31st May, 2001 in the year 2003.