AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Party/Parties are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
In this writ petition challenge is thrown to the notice of assessment dated 23rd August, 2017 under Section 142 (1) for the Assessment Year 2014-15 (for short AY 2014-15).
Mr. Bhaumick, Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the said impugned notice is hit by the limitation as provided under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the IT Act).
In support of his above argument, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following authorities: (a) LAWS (CAL) 1944 49 in Re: CALCHAR PLYWOOD LTD. - Vs- Income Tax Officer, A. War
(b) ITR Vol.205 Page 508 in Re: Hope Textiles & Anar. -Vs.- Union of India & Ors.
(c) ITR Vol.120 Page 979 in Re: Rajinder Nath -Vs- Commission of IncomeTax, Delhi.
On behalf of the Revenue/Respondents, Mr. Nizamuddin, Learned Counsel takes this Court to the order of 2nd March, 2017 passed in an earlier writ petition, also of the present petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court by setting aside the order under Section 127 of the IT Act transferring the jurisdiction connected to AY 2014-15 of the writ petitioner from Arambagh, Hooghly to New Jalpaiguri.
Mr. Nizamuddin argues and, in the opinion of this Court correctly so, that in the earlier writ petition the petitioner did not complain of the bar of limitation to the exercise of jurisdiction at the original place of assessment, viz. Arambagh, Hooghly. Taking this Court to the grounds of the earlier writ petition, being W.P. 2039 (W) of 2017, Learned Counsel for the Revenue/ Respondents submits that the petitioner/assessee expressed his clear intention to submit to the jurisdiction at Arambagh, Hooghly instead of New Jalpaiguri without raising the defence of limitation.
Mr. Nizamuddin next takes this Court to the provisions of Section 153 of the IT Act and particularly Sub-Section 6(i) thereof which, permits an assessment, re-assessment or re-computation to proceed without being barred by limitation, provided such exercise is permitted by an order of Court not otherwise by way of an appeal or reference under the IT Act.
Mr. Nizamuddin therefore further argues and, again in the opinion of this Court correctly so, that the provisions of 153(6)(i) shall apply with full force to the present facts inasmuch as the order of transfer of jurisdiction to New Jalpaiguri was set aside with the liberty granted to the authorities to proceed with the assessment in accordance with law at Arambagh, Hooghly.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court cannot be ad idem with the petitioner that the expression in accordance with law can now prohibit the Revenue/Respondents from proceeding with the assessment post the order restoring jurisdiction to Arambagh, Hooghly thereby creating the eligibility of the assessment exercise to be protected from the otherwise rigours of limitation vide Section 153(6)(i) (supra).
This Court is also of the view that the ground of limitation cannot be now taken in the second writ petition which relates to the same AY 2014-15 on the ground of res judicata and principles analogous thereto. The petitioner cannot be allowed to turn the clock back by now arguing that the assessment exercise which was transferred back from at New Jalpaiguri is barred by ground of limitation. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the dominant fact that the order dated 2nd March, 2017 has attained finality.
For the above reasons, affidavits are not invited. Allegations made are deemed to be denied.
WP No. 25891 (W) of 2017 stands accordingly dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.