Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2612 2009 SLD 2612 (2009) 314 ITR 123
Calcutta High Court
W.P. No. 1865 OF 2008 FEBRUARY 5, 2009
SOUMITRA PAL, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Gaurav Agarwal

v.

Income Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for Where in letter objecting to notice under section 148 it had been stated that notice under section 148 was a 'pure guess, erroneous, misconceived, inade-quate and bad in law', since objection was bald and not specific, it could not be treated to be an objection to said notice [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of revenue] Gaurav Agarwal v. ITO [2009] 314 ITR 123 (Cal.) Where in the letter objecting to the notice under section 148 it had been stated that the notice under section 148 was a 'pure guess, erroneous, misconceived, inade-quate and bad in law', since the objection was bald and not specific, it could not be treated to be an objection to the said notice. Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice for Where in writ petition petitioner had challenged notice issued under section 148 on several grounds including point of jurisdiction, since assessee had been represented before 'ITO' by an advocate and thus submitted to ITO's jurisdiction and since assessment order had been passed and communicated, petitioner could not question jurisdiction but could file an appeal against reassessment order Gaurav Agarwal v. ITO [2009] 314 ITR 123 (Cal.) Where in the writ petition the petitioner had challenged the notice issued under section 148 on several grounds, including the point of jurisdiction : Held that since the assessee had been represented by an advocate before the ITO he could not question the jurisdiction. Since assessment order had been passed and communicated, the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised and since the time to file appeal had expired, as prayed for, if appeal was preferred within three weeks from the date of instant decision the appellate authority should condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits. S. Chakraborty and R. Bharadwaj for the Petitioner. D. Som and Md. Nizamuddin for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated May 7,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492