Mavis Satcom Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the notices issued to M/s. Mavis Satcom Ltd., represented by its

managing director, Mrs. Prabha Sivakumar, 48, NP, Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-600032 seeking certiorari and other

appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records in PAN : AACCM2127K dated November 6, 2009, and November 4, 2009, on the

file of the respondent pursuant to the notice dated December 19, 2008, and December 5, 2008, relating to the assessment years 2003-04 and

2004-05 and quash the same.

The petitioner is a registered company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and carrying on the business of operating a television

network. Being an assessee on the file of the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner has been maintaining the regular

books of account by filing returns of income regularly. In respect of the year 2003-04, the return was filed by the petitioner declaring annual

income. After processing the income, the Income Tax Department accepted the same pursuant to the issue of a prima facie intimation dated

November 18, 2004. Thereafter, the return of income was selected in scrutiny proceedings and statutory notices u/s 143(2) were issued. The

petitioner (sic) the assessing authority and furnished the details sought for. Thereafter, the respondent also completed the assessment u/s 143(3) by

order dated March 30, 2006 demand of Rs. 51,408 was also raised and the same was paid by the petitioner herein. In respect of the assessment

year 2004-05, a return of income was filed in respect of which the Department issued an intimation u/s 143(1) accepting the return filed on August

24, 2005, and determining a sum of Rs. 1,48,159. The same was also paid by the petitioner. No further proceedings were initiated by the

respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner received notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner received two notices dated December 19,

2008, and December 5, 2008, in respect of the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt

of the notices, the correctness of issuance of these notices has been put in issue in the writ petitions on the ground that the respondent had

erroneously issued these two notices on the basis of audit objection raised in respect of some of the assessments.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the reasons for issuance of notices cannot be permissible in view of

the settled position of law and in support of her submission, she has also relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hackbridge-Hewittic and

Easun Ltd., and CIT v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. [1998] 230 ITR 70 (Mad). The above mentioned judgments have held that the reopening of

assessment cannot be done on the basis of audit objection and on this basis, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash the

abovesaid impugned notices.

In reply, the learned senior special public prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this court shall not entertain the writ

petitions since the petitioner has got effective and an alternative remedy u/s 251, as an appeal and further right of appeal u/s 252 before the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal. Again, as against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, further appeal before this court u/s 260A and also further remedy is

contemplated u/s 260B before this court. On these basis he has urged to dismiss the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner also after receiving the impugned notices from the

respondent have appeared before the Assessing Officer on November 27, 2009, and after making their appearances, they sought for adjournment.

This was also granted and the case was also posted on December 3, 2009. Subsequently, on the date of hearing on December 3, 2009, no one

appeared. No letter was submitted by the petitioner seeking further time. Nonetheless, the case was again posted to December 14, 2009.

Therefore, still sufficient time is available for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer by filing a detailed explanation for the notices

impugned herein, hence it was urged, the writ petition is not maintainable in law.

Heard the parties on both the sides. This court does not want to go into the correctness of the reasons mentioned for issuance of notices

impugned herein. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner after receiving the impugned notices

have appeared before the Assessing Officer and obtained further time to submit explanation. Now, the matter is posted for further hearing on

December 14, 2009. Therefore, having seen that the matter is posted for hearing before the Assessing Officer on December 14, 2009, this court is

not inclined to interfere with the notices which have called upon the petitioner to give explanation. Therefore, this court, to meet the ends of justice,

one week time is granted from today (December 10, 2009) to file a detailed explanation before the Assessing Officer. Till then the respondent will

not pass any final order. After considering the explanation which will be given within one week from today, it is open for the respondent to

consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With this observation, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.