R.M.SAHAI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a tax practitioner on the income -tax side at Kanpur, has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated March 23, 1989, passed by the Asst. CIT (Investigation), Circle II (1), Kanpur, for the asst. yrs. 1986 -87 and 1987 -88.
(2.) IT is urged that since the notices issued under S. 147/148 of the IT Act are without jurisdiction, the entire assessment orders are liable to be quashed. According to learned counsel, the procedure provided under the Act, namely, the existence, applying mind to it and recording reasons, getting endorsement of the CIT were not followed. Therefore, the conditions precedent for exercise, of reopening were absent. True, the law is well -settled. Notice for escaped assessment under S. 147/148 of the iT Act is a jurisdictional notice. But it was not raised in the reply to the show cause notice. No finding was invited of the assessing authority. And if it be so, then it can be raised in appeal. Many decisions were placed that alternative remedy is no bar. We do not think it is necessary to mention them, as, except that the petitioner is a lawyer and huge liability has been created, no other circumstances could be pointed out. For this, the petitioner himself appears to have been responsible as he did not appear in response to various notices stated to have been issued and served on him.
(3.) TWO other submissions may also be noticed : one is that the order is arbitrary and that it was passed without affording any opportunity. Any comment by this Court on either of these aspects may prejudice the claim of the petitioner. But all this happened for what the petitioner has to blame himself.;