COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS MAJOR TIKKA KHUSHWANT SINGH
1996 P T D 574
[212 I T R 650]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: J. S. Verma, S. P. Bharucha and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and another
versus
Major TIKKA KHUSHWANT SINGH
Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1977, decided on 24/01/1995.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 6, 1974, of the Punjab and Haryana High Count in C.W. No. 2068 of 1974).
Income-tax---
----Reassessment---Notice---Issued within period of limitation but served after that period---High Court---Writ petition---Appeal from assessment order pending before appellate authority---High Court deciding the interpretation of the word "issue"---Direction that appeal be decided according to law---Appeal to Supreme Court by department---Meaning of "issue" settled by Supreme Court decision-- Department's appeal dismissed--Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 148 & 149.
A notice of reassessment was issued within the period of limitation but the notice was served on the respondent after that period and the Income Tax Officer passed an assessment order. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging both the assessment order and a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed; and the High Court admitted the petition on the point of interpretation of the word "issue" in section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In its decision the High Court held that the notice of reassessment though "issued" within the period of limitation was bad as it was served after that period but, since an appeal was pending against the order of assessment, directed that the appeal be decided by, the appellate authority in accordance with law: See Tikka Khushwant Singh v. C.I.T. (1975) 101 ITR 106 (P&H). The Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court:
Held, that the point of law involved in the appeal was already settled by the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 in which it was held that the issuance of a notice of reassessment within the period of limitation gave jurisdiction to the Income Tax Officer to proceed to make the reassessment. Since, however, the appellate authority was directed by the High Court to decide the appeal in accordance with law and in doing so also to ascertain when the reassessment notice had been despatched by registered post, there was no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai (P.) Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC) ref.
G. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate (K.P. Bhatnagar and S.N. Terdol with him) for Appellants.
K.B. Rohatgi for Respondent.
ORDER
The point of law involved for decision in this appeal is already settled by the decision of this Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai (P.) Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163, in which it has been held that the issuance of a notice within the period of limitation gives jurisdiction to the Income Tax Officer to proceed to make the reassessment. A copy bf the impugned order made by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent has not been produced by the: appellant. However, from the statement contained to the special leave petition, it appears that the High Court directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the assessee's appeal in accordance with law and in doing so to also ascertain when the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been despatched by registered post. There is thus no occasion to interfere with the order made by the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
M.B.A./1059/Tax Appeal dismissed.