IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17246 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Hansa Exports Corporation …Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate, and Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notice dated 5.3.2009 (P-4), issued under Section 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, Jalandhar. The reasons for issuance of notice have also been recorded as is evident from the perusal of the order dated 5.3.2009 (P-5). The petitioner has already raised objections dated 11.6.2009 (P-6) against issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and request has been made for dropping the proceedings. Those objections have been rejected by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 15.6.2009 (P-7). It has come on record that the basic reason for re-opening the assessment is the status of one Shri Sanjeev Suri. It has also come on record that there was no employer employee relationship between Shri Sanjeev Suri and the petitioner firm. The CWP No. 17246 of 2009 alleged allegation in the notice as well as in the reasons sheet (P-4 & P-5) is that the claim made in respect of Keyman Insurance Policy on the life of Shri Sanjeev Suri was not allowable deduction as Shri Sanjeev Suri was partner of the firm. On account of the mistake committed in status of the aforesaid Shri Sanjeev Suri, the assessment is sought to be re-opened. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we are of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and the argument that the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter are without jurisdiction, is wholly without merit. It is not a case where the department is proceeding on the basis of change of opinion. The department appears to be well within its right to re-open the assessment as there is error apparent on the face of record. The case set up by the department would not fall within the prohibition contemplated for re-opening of assessment proceedings on account of escapement of income. We have refrain ourselves from making any observation on merit because all the issues which the petitioner has raised before us can easily be raised before the competent authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the departmental authorities. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) November 11, 2009 JUDGE 2 CWP No. 17246 of 2009 Pkapoor 3