Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jagdish Raj Chauhan on 5 March, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                        ITA No. 913 of 2008.
                                        Date of Decision : 5.3.2009.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalnadhar.


                                                     ....Appellant
                              Versus

Jagdish Raj Chauhan, Suhagwanti & Gurbachan Singh (AOP), H.No. 18,
Tagore Nagar, Gujral Chowk, Jalnadhar.


                                                     ....Respondent

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh

Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate,
for the appellant.

J.S. Khehar. J. (Oral)

During the course of hearing of the instant appeal,

learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue acknowledged, that the notice

under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to

as “the Act”) was issued on 8.9.1999 and thereafter by an order dated

12.10.1999, the Assessing Officer sent intimation under Section 143 (1) (a)

of the Act.

It is therefore, that we required the learned counsel for

the appellant to assist us whether in terms of the decision rendered by the

Supreme Court in CIT versus Gujarat Electricity Board, 260 ITR 84

whether it was open to the appellant-Revenue to issue intimation under

Section 143(1)(a) of the Act after he had already issued notice for regular

assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly

acknowledges, that in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
ITA No. 913 of 2008. (2)

in CIT versus Gujarat Electricity Board (supra), after issuing notice for

regular assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act, it was not open to the

Assessing Officer to send an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

Thus viewed, it is apparent, that the intimation as well as the consequential

action taken by the appellant-Revenue against the respondent-assessee on

the basis of an un-authorised intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act,

cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

Since no other submission has been advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, we are of the view that the

instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly, dismissed.

(J.S. Khehar)
Judge

(Nawab Singh)
Judge
5.3.2009.

SN