Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1870 (PNJ)

Indira Kakkar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

2006-05-01

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, RAJESH BINDAL

body2006
Judgment 1. The appellant has approached this Court raising the following substantial questions of law as amended on 10th Aug., 2005, arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short the Tribunal) passed in ITA No. 568/Asr/1998, C.O. No. 43/Asr/1998 dt. 27th Feb., 2Q04, for the asst. yr, 1992-93: 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in reversing the finding of the CIT(A) and upholding the validity of issue (of) notice under Section 148. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in restoring the matter to the CIT(A) and directing him to decide the matter on merits. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book carefully with their assistance. 3. We are of the view that question No. 2 referred to above do arise for consideration by this Court in the present appeal. With the consent of the parties we have proceeded to dispose of the appeal finally on merits. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the original return of income filed by the appellant for the year in question was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act (for short the Act). For the reasons recorded, the competent authority issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 18th July, 1995 and in pursuance thereof assessment was framed on 16th Jan., 1998. On appeal against the order of assessment, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short the CIT(A)] vide order dt. 29th July, 1998 quashed the notice under Section 148 of the Act on technical ground and consequently accepted the appeal of the assessee but did not touch the case on merits. 5. After quashing of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to the petitioner by the CIT(A) on technical ground, since the limitation was, still available, the Revenue issued a fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act on 9th Dec., 1999 by recording fresh reasons, which were substantially similar to which were recorded earlier. 5. After quashing of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to the petitioner by the CIT(A) on technical ground, since the limitation was, still available, the Revenue issued a fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act on 9th Dec., 1999 by recording fresh reasons, which were substantially similar to which were recorded earlier. The validity of this notice was upheld in a writ petition filed by the petitioner vide judgment of this Court reported as R. Kakkar Glass & Crockery House v. CIT Thereafter, the AO passed the order of assessment in pursuance of the second notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 22nd May, 2002. An appeal filed by the assessee against the second order of assessment passed in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act was accepted by the CIT(A) vide order dt. 3rd March, 2003. Against this order, the Revenue went in appeal further to the Tribunal which was rejected vide order dt. 15th Sept., 2003. 6. We have been informed that the Revenue did not further challenge this order passed by the Tribunal in any further proceedings. 7. The present appeal is arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal in pursuance of the first notice to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act. It has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that the proceedings initiated on the basis of similar reasons by issuing fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act attained finality with passing of the order by the Tribunal on 15th Sept., 2003, which was not challenged further by the Revenue. The effect of this has not been examined by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 8. For the reasons recorded above, we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the Tribunal to decide this issue afresh after affording opportunity to the parties.The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.