COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHARAT ANAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #8 ITA 1569/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. versus . SHARAT ANAND ..... Respondent Through Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 08.10.2010 . . . Heard Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee ? respondent. In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the number of questions have been formulated by the revenue. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue only pressed question No.2.4 which is as follows: ?2.4 Whether learned ITAT erred in not considering that inspite of Assessing Officer recording in its order that ?notice under Section 148 dated 6th February, 2001 was served after recording reasons? as far back on 27.03.2002 ought not to have entertained additional ground as to the challenge to the notice under Section 148 of the Act?? . To appreciate whether the aforesaid question really raises a substantial ITA 1569/2010 Page 1 of 3 question of law, the facts in brief are requisite to be stated. It is worth noting that a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The stand of the assessee on many a ground was rejected. Being grieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal. A pure question of law was raised before the tribunal relating to the factum that prior to issue of notice the satisfaction was not recorded. The tribunal referred to the language employed in Section 148(2) of the Act and also referred to the order passed by the Assessing Officer and came to hold as follows: ?6. ?A copy of the reasons recorded has been placed before us, at page 4 of the assessee?s paper book. The date mentioned therein is ?6.12.2001?. The notice issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act is dated 6.2.2001. . 7. Section 148(2) of the Act reads as follows: ?148(2) ? The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.? . Therefore, it is the express provision of the Act, enshrined in Section 148(2) thereof, that the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings need must be recorded prior to the issuance of any notice u/s 148. In the present case, clearly, this provision has not been complied with. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was thus issued to the assessee without recording any reasons. The recording of reasons is a pre-requisite for initiating sine qua non is missing in the present case. Once there is so, the notice u/s 148 itself becomes invalid and we hold so. Proceedings pursuant to an invalid notice are no ITA 1569/2010 Page 2 of 3 proceedings in the eye of law and the assessment framed thereafter is no assessment of law. Hence, this grievance of the assessee is accepted and the notice dated 6.2.2001 issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act is quashed. As a necessary corollary, assessment made in pursuance thereof is also held to be invalid.? . In view of the aforesaid analysis made by the tribunal, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J . . OCTOBER 08, 2010 dk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1569/2010 Page 3 of 3 .