| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2891 2004 SLD 2891 (2004) 269 ITR 449 |
Rajasthan High Court
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1140 OF 2003 MARCH 20, 2003
PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1140 OF 2003 MARCH 20, 2003
PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ram Niwas Choudhary
v.
Union of India
Law:
Section:
Section 151, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice for - Petitioner was served with a notice under section 148 - Petitioner raised objections against said notice that it was obligatory upon Assessing Officer under section 151 to record reason to effect that it was a fit case for issue of such notice under section 148 and that unless a satisfaction was recorded over reasons recorded by Assessing Officer by higher authority notice under section 148 would not be issued - However, said objections were raised by him before concerned authority after delay of 22 months of issuing said notice - Whether since petitioner himself did not diligently conduct his case before appropriate authority and there was gross delay and laches on part of petitioner and petitioner had alternate remedy to raise his grievance before concerned authority, instant case was not fit case to entertain writ petition - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner was served with a notice under section 148. The petitioner asserted that it was obligatory upon the Assessing Officer under section 151 to record reason to the effect that it was a fit case for the issue of such notice under section 148 and unless a satisfaction was recorded over reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer by the higher authority, the notice under section 148 could not be issued. HELD The facts revealed that the petitioner for the first time raised the preliminary objection after almost two years of notice being issued to him. The conduct of the petitioner in causing delay in the proceedings before the concerned authority itself was sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. [Para 3] In view of the fact that the petitioner himself did not diligently conduct his case before the appropriate authority and there was a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner had alternate remedy to raise his grievance before the concerned authority, the instant case was not a fit case to entertain the writ petition against a show-cause notice. [Para 7] The petitioner's submission that at least direction might be issued that the respondents might supply a…
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