Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Sangrur
[Citation -2017-LL-0509-20]

Citation 2017-LL-0509-20
Appellant Name Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltd.
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Sangrur
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 09/05/2017
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags speaking order • reassessment proceedings • jurisdiction to make assessment • opportunity of being heard
Bot Summary: AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner- assessee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 31.03.2017 issued by Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide which it was directed to submit return of income in a prescribed form for assessment year 2010-11. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 06.04.2011 appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala in exercise of powers under Section 127(2)(a) of the Act, had transferred the jurisdiction of the assessee from Sangrur to Central Circle, Patiala. It was further submitted that since then, the jurisdiction is being exercised by the said Assessing Officer and the case has not been re-transferred and no fresh order under Section 127 of the Act has been passed. It was 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2017 10:34:44 ::: Civil Writ Petition No.9916 of 2017 -2- --- urged that in such circumstances, the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act by the respondent was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel argued that the representation/objection against the impugned notice has been moved by the petitioner on 03.04.2017 which has not been decided so far. It was prayed that before proceeding further in the matter, the respondent be directed to decide the representation/objection in a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent to take a decision on the representation/objection dated 03.04.2017 moved by the petitioner, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to it within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.


IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 Civil Writ Petition No.9916 of 2017 Date of Decision: May 09, 2017 Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltd. Petitioner versus Income Tax Officer, Sangrur Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ***** Present: Mr. Sunil Mukhi, Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. ***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) present petition has been preferred by petitioner- assessee under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing notice dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued by Income Tax Officer (Headquarter Sangrur) under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act') vide which it was directed to submit return of income in prescribed form for assessment year 2010-11. 2. It has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that vide order dated 06.04.2011 appended as Annexure P-2 with petition, Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala in exercise of powers under Section 127(2)(a) of Act, had transferred jurisdiction of assessee from Sangrur to Central Circle, Patiala. It was further submitted that since then, jurisdiction is being exercised by said Assessing Officer and case has not been re-transferred and no fresh order under Section 127 of Act has been passed. It was 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2017 10:34:44 ::: Civil Writ Petition No.9916 of 2017 -2- ------ urged that in such circumstances, initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of Act by respondent was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel argued that representation/objection against impugned notice has been moved by petitioner on 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-4) which has not been decided so far. It was prayed that before proceeding further in matter, respondent be directed to decide representation/objection (Annexure P-4) in time bound manner after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner in accordance with law. 3. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, perusing present petition and without expressing any opinion on merits of case, we dispose of present petition by directing respondent to take decision on representation/objection dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure P-4) moved by petitioner, in accordance with law by passing speaking order and after affording opportunity of hearing to it within period of fifteen days from date of receipt of certified copy of order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) May 09, 2017 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2017 10:34:45 ::: Hanuman Roller Flour Mills Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Sangrur
Report Error