RAHUL JAIN V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER and ORS.

WP/2662/2004

AI Insights

Rahul Jain filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Raipur, under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The notice was part of the assessment proceedings for the year 1997-98, which were contested by Jain on the grounds of being time-barred and not adhering to the procedural requirements stipulated under the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer had reassessed Jain's income, categorizing agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources and made additional assessments under various heads. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this assessment, but the matter remained contentious regarding the timeliness and procedural adherence of the reassessment notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2005] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758088 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2005
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHAAK DUBEY
• Keywords: Assessment; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Mandamus; Prohibition; Undisclosed sources; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 250; 263; 264; 153(2A); 254

Judgement Text

"t^'fA IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition No. ^; g y ^€../ «r^ (1) The Income Tax Officer Ward1(3)Raipur(C.G.) (2) Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Finance, North Block NewDeIhi s. (3) ChiefCommissionerof IncomeTax, Raipur(C.G.) Before : Hon'bte The ChiefJustice and his companionjudges ofthe High Court ofJudicature Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur ^PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2261227 OP THE CONSTITUT10N OF IDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE DIRECTIONS. ORDERS OR /RITS INCLUDING WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. ~%^~^^,/ CERTIORARI PROHIBITION ETC.:- F XI-HC-22 3^1'^T f^'ijcb 3?n^r 5^*iic^ ^f^a -L-. '-' .. ^a? ^Ni^C^.._\"v ^IM^ra^ s ^l' XI-HG—78 ^t^T \"^T f (ytf^^) I^TIW^^CT^ -2_- after consideriag the miatt^ done de novo on 16/3/200: Shri Chaudhary, no,l aad 3, eontended received ui fhe ofi&ce of |r set aside fhe assessnient to be as perAnnexure-P/3, leajj-ned counsel for the respondents the aforesaid assessinent was thlat 26/4/2001. It is further 26/7/2004. Leamed counsel for st^ted notice was issued on 30/7/| itsetf is Uable to be quashe|d subinitted that luider Sectidn it was iacunibent on fhe As fiiiaacial year, ia which Section 254 is received. accordiagly fhe assessnie4t 31/3/2003. It is also passed aad assessnieut Uable to be quashed. cbl^id^'1 'HTR^f ^ tt^t 4 issued by fhe department is f lioutation provided under tiie it cannot be ignored, fhe stiprdated period is aad circuinstaaces of fhe case >n, the petition is aUowed aad .0/7/2004 (Annexure-P/1) is liable to be quashed aad is qua^hed. Coste as incurred. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Git.PRJ—FS/78 -.»/'200(-50,000. i o7 ^ "