M/S LONGOWALIA POULTRY FARM V. DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T

CWP/16336/1998

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Longowalia Poultry Farm, the appellant, contesting show cause notices and information requests from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Karnal, the respondent. The appellant sought to quash these notices, arguing that the issues raised were already covered in their favor by a previous order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Additionally, it was contended that the Assessing Officer considered infractions not included in the original show cause notice. The respondent countered that the Assessing Officer was entitled to consider additional facts under Explanation (3) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cited a Supreme Court judgment that supported their position on deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act. The court decided not to quash the notices and directed the appellant to address the issues before the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693379 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. And others, [1999]237 ITR 174
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK MITTAL
• Keywords: Income tax appellate tribunal; Quashing of notice; Show cause notice; Deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I
• Section: 147; 148; 80HH; 80I

Judgement Text

"CWP No.16336 of 1998 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16336 of 1998 Date of decision: September 25, 2013. M/s Longowalia Poultry Farm ... Appellant v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Karnal ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Shri Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla , J. (Oral): The petitioner prays for quashing show cause notice dated 14.1.1997 (Annexure P-2) and notices/letters seeking information (Anexures P-9, P-10 and P-14). Counsel for the petitioner asserts that as issues raised by the Assessing Officer, by referring to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are covered in favour of the assessee by an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the impugned notice and letters may be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this apart, the Assessing Officer has taken into consideration certain alleged infractions that did not form part of the show cause notice. It is prayed that in view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2013.10.04 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16336 of 1998 -: 2 :- may be allowed and Annexures P-2, P-9, P-10 and P-14 may be quashed. Counsel for the respondent submits that in view of Explanation (3) to Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer may go into the facts that have not been referred to in the show cause notice and, therefore, the petitioner's plea in respect thereof does not survive. As regards order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, counsel for the revenue submits that as a reference filed by the revenue was pending at the time of filing of the reply and even otherwise the issue in hand is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. And others, [1999]237 ITR 174 holding that deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act are not available to the petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notices. The Assessing Officer is conferred with power, under Section 148 of the Act, to serve a show cause notice upon an assessee and, therefore, in the absence of an illegal assumption of jurisdiction, find no reason to entertain the petition. This apart, Explanation (3) to Section 147 of the Act, is an answer to the petitioner's argument that the Assessing Officer cannot take into consideration factors other than those referred in the show cause notice. The petitioner's plea relating to the order passed by the Income Tax Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2013.10.04 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16336 of 1998 -: 3 :- Appellate Tribunal can be validly urged and raised before the Assessing Officer, particularly as the matter was pending in a reference by the revenue and the revenue alleges that the petitioner is not entitled to any deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act. As a consequence, we dispose of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer for further proceedings. Parties are directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 25.10.2013. [ Rajive Bhalla ] Judge [Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] September 25, 2013. Judge kadyan Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2013.10.04 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh "