This Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had patent jurisdiction and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not attracted.
The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1218 OF 2006
Superb Minerals Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner.
V/s.
Income Tax Officer,
Range 2(1), Nashik & Others .. Respondents.
Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the petitioner.
Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P. Bhosale for the
respondents.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C. :
Mr.A.K. Jasani, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that by the impugned notice dated
29th March, 2005 issued under Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, in the prima facie opinion of
the Assessing Officer, there is escapement of income
in the sum of Rs.2,68,338/- for the assessment year
1998-99. He submits that the issuance of notice
under Section 148 is beyond four years and the
escaped income falls much below the threshold limit
under Section 149(1)(b). The learned counsel would
submit that the Assessing Officer has wrongly treated
the interest income of Rs.2,68,338/- as gross
interest income without giving benefit of deduction
of expenditure having a nexus with such receipt. He
relied upon the judgment of Special Bench of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Lalsons
2
Enterprises V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
[(2004) 89 ITD 25]. The learned counsel submitted
that despite categorical objection raised in response
to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer did
not deal with this objection in the order dated 8th
February, 2006. The learned counsel would submit
that the notice dated 29th March, 2005 under Section
148 suffers from error of jurisdiction.
2. Having considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the
view that the impugned notice cannot be said to
suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction. It needs to
be emphasized that merely because the Assessing
Officer has disposed of the petitioners objections to
the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by speaking order, in the garb of filing writ
petition, correctness of such order cannot be
challenged as if this Court were exercising appellate
powers.
3. It would be seen that in its return filed for
the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner reduced
its income of Rs.5,95,616/- by 90% from the profit of
business resulting in loss from exports. The
Assessing Officer was of the prima facie view that
the deductions under Section 80HHC so computed by the
3
petitioner resulted in escapement of income of
Rs.2,68,338/-. As to whether the expenditure claimed
by the petitioner has a nexus with the interest
receipt while computing the business profit and that
there is no escapement of income shall obviously be
open to be raised by the petitioner at the time of
re-assessment and if the Assessing Officer passes an
order adverse, the matter can be carried in appeal.
We are satisfied that no case for invocation of extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out.
4. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 exceeds the jurisdictional time limit under Section 149(1)(b).
Whether this Court can exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine revenue assessments as a court of appellate jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalsons Enterprises V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxReferred¶9
Lalsons Enterprises V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 89 ITD 25]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Superb Minerals Pvt.Ltd.
Income Tax Officer, Range 2(1), Nashik
R.M. LODHA
J.P. DEVADHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court