AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. SRINIVASAN, C.J. :
This writ petition is directed against the notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The main objection raised is that the sanction of the competent authority, as prescribed by s. 151(2) of the Act has not been obtained by the first respondent. The reply of the respondents is that the sanction has been accorded by the Addl. CIT by order, dt. 31st October, 1995. A copy of the said sanction letter is annexed as annexure, R.A. The contention of the petitioners counsel is that the Addl. CIT will not be a Dy. CIT, as contemplated by the section and the only authority empowered by the section is the Dy. CIT. This contention overlooks the amendment introduced in s. 2(19A) of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 1994, w.e.f. 1st June, 1994. By the said amendment, the expression "Deputy Commissioner" has been defined as a person appointed to be Dy. CIT or an Addl. CIT under sub-s. (1) of s. 117. In this case, the Addl. CIT has exercised his powers on 31st October, 1995.
The next contention is that the assessment relates to a much earlier period ending 1989-90. According to learned counsel, the Addl. CIT has no power to grant sanction with regard to such a period. There is no substance in this contention. Once the Addl. CIT falls within the definition of the Dy. CIT, then he could exercise the power of the Dy. CIT under s. 151(2) of the Act, which will necessarily relate to an earlier period than the notice. In this case, the notice under s. 148 of the Act was issued in 1995. At that time, the Addl. CIT was empowered to grant sanction. Hence, the objection fails.
The third contention is that the notice is barred by limitation. This is a matter, which can be raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. It is only a notice issued under s. 148 of the Act and this Court will go into the question of jurisdiction only. Once, it is found that the authority during the said period has done the same within his power, as required under the statute, as such, the other objections regarding notice can be raised by the petitioner before the concerned authorities.
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
CWP No. 645 of 1996 :
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the present application is also dismissed and the interim order dt. 8th April, 1996, is vacated.