Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

By the Court

This is a petition for quashing notice dated 30-3-2001, Annexure P-11, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Special Range, Ludhiana (respondent) u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking further proceedings in pursuance of notice, Annexure P-13.

The main thrust of the petitioners challenge to the impugned notice is that mere change in the opinion cannot be a ground for initiation of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148 of the Act. In support of this, the petitioner has relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Shri B.S. Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner argued that the court may entertain the petition against the show-cause notice because the same is ex facie ultra vires the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act and is also against the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He further argued that even though the petitioner submitted objections in the form of representation, Annexure P-17, the same are not likely to be entertained by the respondent and in all probability, he will pass order of reassessment without dealing with the objections.

We have thoughtfully considered the arguments of learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to share the apprehension expressed by him that the respondent would decide the matter without even considering the objections raised by the petitioner. We are convinced that the respondent is bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and then take a decision on the issue of reassessment and we are not inclined to entertain the petition by assuming that he will necessarily pass order adversely affecting the petitioner. In our opinion, the writ petition is clearly premature and it is liable to be dismissed as such.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as premature but at the same time, we deem it proper to direct that the respondent shall first decide the objections raised by the petitioner and then pass order of reassessment, if he comes to the conclusion that the objections are untenable.