Case Law Details
Hetal Brijesh Ukani Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court)
The notice under section 148 of the Act, which is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same. The legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 of the Act and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer pursuant to the impugned notice, the provisions of section 292B of the Act would not be attracted and hence, the notice under section 148 of the Act has to be treated as invalid. In the absence of a valid notice, the Assessing Officer has no authority to assume the jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act and, hence, continuation of the proceeding under section 147 of the Act pursuant to such invalid notice, is without authority of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Rule. Ms. Kalpana Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a very narrow compass and with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
OFFhand
The court’s opinion in the instant case, – so also in likewise earlier decided cases, – makes for a pure and simple common sense opinion . Any contrary view/ruling is inconceivable.
The tragedy is that, time and again, with no scruples, such patently indispurable non-issues are being taken up and relentlessly pursued upto the stage HC / SC . It is unimaginable, howsoever convoluted be anyone’s thinking, that there could be no other contrarian view sustainable in law or otherwise, by any sane reasoning or logical thinking.
Unless and untle such obstinate stance taken by the Revenue is efrecdtively checked, curbed and put an end to, by an appropriate / clear-cut amendment of the law, any one or steps taken lately, to reduce the scope for proliferation and perpetuation of disputes, whatever thus far taken, albeit half heartedly so, litigation might have to be lived with, as any other malady , a fact of life – Agree ?!
KEY Point:
The HC’s opinion , it needs to be made a conscious note of, is of equal application, and is of no less relevance, to any other taxable ‘PERSON’ (inclusive of a corporate) .
For a related recent instance, refer the Del. HC Judgment in GENPACT case..
Briefly said: In re. GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v DCIT. the impugned assessment order was passed with the Assessee named, – “Genpact India (Now merged with „Genpact India – Private Limited’, PAN: AABCE446JB)”. The assessment was framed in the name of an entity which did not exist as of the date of the order; since it stood merged with Genpact India Private limited (GIPL). Even the PAN number was shown as „AAACG9163H‟,
(More read – the Judgment reported @ ; in particular Para. 13)
For a critique, read the Posts o FB and LinkedIn) – As pinpointed, that stands out as a classic instance, to illustrate how/ why/ for what reasons litigation is being stimulated and remains prolonged / perpetuated, and inconclusive with no end in vision ?!
TAIL Note: Those concerned are looking forward to know how far the whole host of such points of issue are going to be covered / taken care of, for good, in the long awaited simplified new tax code..