NEMI CHAND CHHAJER V. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

CW/17818/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Nemi Chand Chhajer, the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that the notice was based on identical reasons as a previous notice for the Assessment Year 2011-12, which had already been addressed in an earlier assessment order. The court, however, found that the proceedings were valid as they related to different assessment years and that the authorities had appropriately considered the material available for each year separately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750652 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP BHANDAWAT
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Notice; Re-assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17818/2019 Nemi Chand Chhajer S/o Kaan Mal Chhajer, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of F-330, Mandia Road, Pali. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 4, Mandia Road, Pali. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 02/12/2019 Feeling aggrieved of the notice dated 19.03.2019, issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assailing the impugned notice, Mr. Bhandawat invited Court’s Attention towards the notice dated 28.03.2018, issued by the respondent No.4 and submitted that the reasons recorded before issuance of the earlier notice and the present notice are exactly identical and there is no new material with the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, particularly when the proceedings in furtherance of the earlier notice have already culminated into an assessment order dated 18.12.2018. (2 of 3) [CW-17818/2019] The basic premise for challenging the re-assessment proceedings is, that a fresh notice has been issued practically for the same reasons and even the satisfaction recorded by the Commissioner, Income Tax – the competent authority, is almost identical. It was also argued that there is no new material available with the respondent No.2 to initiate re-assessment proceedings against the petitioner. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds the argument advanced by Mr. Bhandawat to be frivolous. The earlier notice under Section 138 of the Act of 1961 had been issued for the Assessment Year 2011-12, inter alia referring to certain loose papers recovered from one Mr. Mahendra Kankaria; the proceedings in furtherance of the earlier notice, after taking response from the petitioner, have culminated into an assessment order under Section 147/143(3) of the Act of 1961. Indisputably, the notice, which has been challenged in the present writ petition is for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The reasons mentioned and the satisfaction arrived at by the Commissioner is in the same phraseology, however, the same by itself does not render the proceedings to be void or without jurisdiction. A set of paper seized/recovered from third party, may contain transaction, spread in different account years/assessment years. On the basis of the material so found, the Income Tax Officer can very well initiate proceedings for re-assessment splitting those transactions in respect of the year, to which they relate. This is, precisely what has happened in the instant case. (3 of 3) [CW-17818/2019] The contention of Mr. Bhandawat that fresh proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has been initiated for the same reasons, is factually correct, but the same does not render the proceedings to be illegal. Since the proceedings are for different assessment years, the argument so zealously advanced, is untenable. So far as the satisfaction of the concerned Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, Income Tax is concerned, a perusal of the pages Nos.65 to 69 available on record clearly suggests that both the authorities have applied their mind objectively and to the fullest extent required under the law. No other argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court does not find the impugned notice to be void or without jurisdiction in any manner. The writ petition, therefore, fails. The stay application also stands dismissed. (DINESH MEHTA),J 228-skm/- "