Delayed Service of I-T Notice Affects Assessment Proceedings: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that delayed service of statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-Tax Act goes to the root of matter and renders the assessment proceedings void. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao was dealing with appeals filed by Anupama Chand and other assessees. The matter arose out of a search conducted by the I-T department on August 4, 2000, in the premises of Urvasi Enterprises, Urvasi Builders, Sheeshmahal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and The Commercial and Industrial Finance (P) Ltd. It was contended that though no search was carried out in the names of the assessees, proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of material seized during the search and the assessees were required to file block returns for the period from 1991-92 up to the date of search. It was contended that block returns were filed in January 2001 declaring nil undisclosed income however the Assessing Officer thereafter issued notices under Section 143(2) on January 29, 2002, and completed block assessments determining undisclosed income and raising tax demands. It was the case of the petitioners that though the notices under Section 143(2) were issued within the prescribed period, that they were served on the assessees beyond the statutory limitation, thereby vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction and the assessment proceedings. The court observed that Section 143(2) empowers the Assessing Officer to scrutinise a return, but the provision mandates that the notice must be served on the assessee within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is filed. The panel drew a distinction between issuance of notice and service of notice, holding that issuance refers to preparation and dispatch by the department, while service occurs only when the notice actually reaches the assessee. In the present case, though the notices were issued within the limitation period, they were served beyond the statutory time. The panel accordingly set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and allowed the appeals without costs.I year MBBS students challenge resultsJustice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court admitted a plea of two first-year MBBS students challenging the announced results of their first year. The petitioners allege that the authorities arbitrarily declared them failed in human anatomy, despite securing more than 50 per cent aggregate marks in theory and practical examinations. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Maduri Pranathi and another, students of Surabhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Siddipet,. It was pointed out that the guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC), prescribed that learners must secure at least 50 per cent of the total marks combined in theory and practical, along with not less than 40 per cent marks separately in theory and practical, for eligibility and passing. Counsel for the petitioner argued that despite securing an aggregate of 150 out of 300 marks and crossing the prescribed 50 per cent threshold, the petitioners were declared as failed. It was also argued that respondents wrongly applied the criteria and failed to adopt a fair and reasonable interpretation of the NMC regulations.. The petitioner sought a direction to promote them to II Year MBBS forthwith, permitting them to attend classes and appear for examinations without any interruption. The judge directed the respondents to obtain instructions and posted the matter for further hearing.BHEL challenges lake beautificationJustice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court heard inconclusively a writ petition concerning development works in Rayasamudram lake at Ramachandrapuram mandal in Sangareddy district. The writ petition was filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited questioning the action of the municipal authorities in undertaking beautification, development and alteration activities in the lake and its full tank level and buffer zone, contending that the lake formed part of its holdings. The petitioner contended that the land belonged to it and the government did not have the right to interfere in its possession. During the hearing, the judge observed that the Rayasamudram lake of about 120 acres constituted a material resource of the community and questioned whether a water body acquired could be treated as private property. The judge also inquired whether the fact that the employees working in the area have access to such lake and their consequent enjoyment of the water body makes it a community resource or not. The petitioner sought an order of status quo, expressing apprehension that private agencies may carry out works which could later become irreversible. The judge observed that works of such irreversible nature would take more time and therefore directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits and posted the matter after two weeks.



Source link