t^'fA IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition No. ^; g <Zj3f 2004 PETITIONER ^\^'- ^>y ^€../ «r^<ff.<'^ ^ ^^' ^. ^A X\-^ .^l^ V- ^' ^" ..••'' 'y RESPONDENTS -%^^^ '-K^^ .s^%^ Hs-^ * •S£S~Svsrw" Rahul Jain S/0 B.L. Jain 20,SouthAvenue Choubey Colony, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS > (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<n<4, ^'d1^'ls<o, M<rti^y NMCtT ^^ieb^SI^^ J^ 200 l^re^r' ^n^r'i^iTW ^ittn 23/3/2005 Shri Shashaak Dubey| Dubey, couu^el for the petiti^ Shri Amit Choudhaiy, | Tax Dcpartincnt/rcspondcnt.1 Heard, fhe notice dated 30/7/2004] imder Section 143(2} ofthe I| Briefly stated fh.e fact^ 1997-98 the petitioner filed| Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(^ under Section 143(3) of th^ 31/3/ 2000. It is contendj <snl^t<n<iii TTPTdf "^ fe^ iPt^K c^ 3rf^PT 3TT^T Sr. Advocate, with SIui Neelabh jiuer. Staadiag Coiiascl for the Incorac s no, 1 and 3, The petitioner has file<p. the present petition chaUengiag issued by fhe Incoine Tax Officer iiconie Tax Act, are that for tlie assessinent year his retum. of iaconie beforc; the 5), Raipiir, The assessment order Income Tax Act was passed on ed fliat the Income Tax Officer assessed fbe petitioner aad li^ated agriculturc mcome shown as mcome from undisclosedj sources aiid also made addition towards ofh.er heads as p€|i' Annexiire-P/2, The petitioner preferred aa appeal before ^tie Commlssloner (Appeals), who JX-^- .-<>^C^.._"v ^IM^ra^ s ^l' XI-HG—78 ^t^T "^T f<TlJoh 3^?T^:TNF T5ET ^l^ld^, yill'M4!®,^OI-M^ HI*ICTI ynw^ Wt 200 3TI^TTI^R> (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 <R»l<-^l< ^ ^iftR 3Tlt^T Cominissioner, Incorae Tax, on fhat the notice was issued on jthe petitioner contended that the p004 as per Annexure-P/ 1, which as beiag barred by tmie. It is 153 (2A) of the Income Tax Act ^sessiag Officer to niake fhe fresh assessiaent before fhe expjiiy of one year from. fhe end of ttie order under Section 250 or It is fiirther subnutted that could have been inade upto sub|niitted that even tlie year 2004 not been made fhe notice is ha^iag XI-HC-22 ^sr ^i^sKn^, ^ifWT^, '^Rry WWfll WflN?* -M arr^r^FT f^iw^Ti^r ^RW <4i^a 1^^, IT^T ^T^T^^IIW -^ifel 3- Section 153(2A) of the jlucosiie Tax Act is pertineut and is quoted below: ~'1S3. Ttfne UnSt for conwlellon of c&ssessinjents emd ^ccs^acssinsnta-' w xxxx (2) XKXX xxxx xxxx of April, 1971, <issessment year, seclion 250 or sect assessment may b chl<4?<v1^1^*ilH<A ^ 'fe^t <M^I< '^'3^R3^^[ xxxx xxxx (2A) Notwitfzstandi^g, anything oontained in subOsections (1) a^id (Q)} in relation io the assessjnent year c^mmencing on the 1st day and any subsequ.ent an order of fresh assessrnent in pur^uanc^ of an order under on 25^ or section 263 or seciion 364, seitin^ cuside or caizoelling an ?. made at any time before the expinf of one ^ear from ihe end of the fincificicil year in. which the order utider secMon 9SO or sec^n 9.54 i^ recmved hy the Chief Comrnission^f or^ConitnissiQner or^ as ihe oase may be, t^ order uruier section 263 or sec^ion 264 i^ passed by the Chief Cornmissioner or C^mrmssioner. Promded ihat li^here order i^zder sec^ion 250 or section 254 i^ rec^wed by the Chief CommwGioner or (DommiGGioner or, as Ihe case maif be, the order under section 263 or seciion 264 is Ipassed by the Chief CoTnmissioner or (^oTnmissioner, on or qfter tfie 1st day of April day of April, 200(^ 1999 bui hefore the ist sucfi an order offresh assessment may b^ made at any time ap to tfie 31st day ofMur&h, 2002.]" •3-S[ ^iqxri^, ^-diy^Ko, 'islcrli-M^i ^it%%?^N? ^ •m ^IT^T *cl^^ (^t^^) W!i^[ ^fl^ 3?T^l -ZT In view offhe abovesaid that the notice dated 30/7/20^ hopelessly barred. The period c] Act is to be stdcUy foUowed aacj The com.pliance withu) inaadatoiy an.d under fhe facts] and in view of fhe legal positi<| the impugued notice dated ^ ^Rfo^N ^jl^S ^ fe^St '^f'^H '^^fTO^??^T legal position, it is ainply clear >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 ^