HARDEVA VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT)
1999 P T D 3595
[230 I T R 875]
[Allahabad High Court (India)]
Before R. K. Gulati and M. C. Agarwal, JJ
HARDEVA
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT)
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.83 of 1998, decided on 12/02/1998.
Income-tax---
----Writ---Writ petition filed challenging notices issued under 5.148---Writ petition dismissed by High Court ---Assessee thereafter, participating in assessment proceedings---Filing another writ petition assailing notices under S.148 on same grounds as were urged in earlier writ petition---High Court cannot sit in. judgment over earlier decision of High Court in writ petition - Constitution of India, Art.226---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, 5.148.
The Income-tax Officer issued notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner in respect of the assessment %'Cars 1986-87 to 1990-91. The petitioner challenged the notices by way of a writ petition on the grounds that the notices issued under section 148 were invalid and that the petitioner had not been supplied with the reasons for the issue of the notices. The High Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner participated to the assessment proceedings. The petitioner filed another writ petition assailing the notices tinder section 148 on the same grounds as were urged in the earlier writ petition, though put in a different form:
Held, dismissing the writ petition, that the petitioner was not entitled in law to institute a second writ petition oil the same grounds on the notices were earlier assailed before the High Court. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision rendered in the earlier writ petition, the remedy of the petitioner lay in approaching the higher Court. The High Court could not sit in judgment over the earlier decision given by a Division Bench of the Court. The contention that the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the enhanced compensation could not be split and assessed in the assessment years in dispute could be canvassed before the higher authority, constituted under the Income-tax Act, if any assessment order was passed and the petitioner felt dissatisfied with it.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is directed against the notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91, copies whereof are' contained in Annexures "7-A" to "7-E" filed with the writ petition. The notices were issued as far back as on March 11, 1996. The issuance of these notices was impugned before this Court by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.435 of 1996, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order, dated July 1, 1996. There two contentions were raised by the petitioner, namely, that the notices issued under section 148 were invalid and, secondly, the petitioner had not been supplied the reasons in pursuance of which the notices under section 148 were issued. Both these contentions were repelled by the Court and the writ petition was dismissed. It appears, that the petitioners thereafter, participated in the assessment proceedings. In paragraph 26 of the present writ petition it is, however, averred that the hearing in pursuance of the notices under section 148 has already been concluded and the assessment orders, if any, are awaited. On these facts the petitioner has chosen to institute this writ petition. The grounds for-assailing the notices under section 148 are the same, which were urged in the earlier writ petition though put- in different form.
We have considered the submissions urged before us on behalf of the petitioner. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled in law to institute a second writ petition on the same grounds on which the impugned notices were earlier assailed before this Court. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision rendered in the earlier writ petition the remedy of the petitioner lay to approach the higher Court; this Court cannot sit in judgment over the earlier decision that was given by a Division Bench of this Court. The contention that the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the enhanced compensation cannot be split and assessed in the assessment years in dispute can as well be canvassed before the higher authority constituted under the Act, if any assessment order is passed and the petitioner feels` dissatisfied with it. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.
M.B.A./3142/FCPetition dismissed.