DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 602/2012 . . . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv. . . . versus . . . NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION . COMPANY ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . . . O R D E R . 16.10.2012 . . . In the present case the revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order dated 18.11.2011 in ITA No.4106/Del/2011. . 2. The assessment which originally was framed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (?Act?, for short) was sought to be reopened under Section 147/148. The reopening of assessment was sought to be questioned and the assessee approached the Uttarakhand High Court in writ petition . No.2192/2009; the writ petition was allowed and it was held that the notice dated 31.3.2009 issued under Section 148 was not valid. The final observations of the Uttarakhand High Court in this regard are as follows : . . . ?40. For the reasons stated above, the notice dated 31st March, 2009 issued under Section 148 of the Act does not comply with proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded does not indicate that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and is quashed. The proceedings initiated in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed since the final assessment order and the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act was issued in gross violation of the interim order of this court. The same is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be enforced. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.? . . . 3. Since the framing of the assessment and consequently proceedings have not been stayed, however, the assessment proceedings continued despite the pendency of the writ petition. They culminated in the reassessment order dated 29.10.2010 which was adverse to the assessee. It approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (?Tribunal?, for short) which by the impugned order set aside the reassessment order. The Tribunal?s order is dated 18.11.2011. The order of 20.8.2011 expressly noticed the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court. Ld. counsel for the revenue contends that he has no instructions as to whether an appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.8.2011 of the Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court. . 4. This Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the revenue cannot be entertained. The initiation of proceedings under Section 148 itself was held to be illegal and the consequent proceedings were quashed. In these circumstances, the further finalization of the reassessment proceedings and the consequent grievance of the appellant/revenue, in respect of the Tribunal?s order cannot be gone into. At the same time, the standing counsel is unaware as to whether an appeal has been filed. If the order dated 20.8.2011 is for some reason set aside, the revenue may move this Court in appropriate proceedings for revival of this appeal. . The appeal is accordingly dismissed but with liberty as mentioned above. . . . S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . OCTOBER 16, 2012 . vld . . . . . $ 9 . . .