ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is a notice dated 31 March, 2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'IT Act') by the Income Tax Officer (in short 'ITO'), Ward No. 9(3) Calcutta. The impugned notice is a notice of initiation of reassessment proceedings against the petitioner company in respect of assessment year 2007-08. The short grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned notice was sought to be served on the petitioner at its earlier address in spite of the Department being aware of the current address of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner did not receive the notice till a copy of the same was handed over to the petitioner after institution of the instant writ petition. The petitioner prays for quashing of the notice and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the impugned notice. Contention of the petitioner:
(2.) Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Poddar, Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that from a perusal of the impugned notice it appears that the same records both the erstwhile and current addresses of the petitioner company being 1/1A Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Electronic Building, 5th Floor, Room No. 5G, Kolkata-700072 and 11/1, Sunny Park, Flat E, Kolkata-700019 respectively. However, the notice was sent by speed post only to the earlier office address of the petitioner and not to the current address and hence the petitioner did not receive the notice. In this connection the petitioner relied on a report of the Inspector attached to the office of the ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata. He then referred to a notice dated 29 October, 2014 which referred to the earlier notice dated 31 March, 2014 which is under challenge in the present petition and called upon the petitioner to furnish the return under Section 148 of the IT Act within 30 days failing which reassessment would be done ex parte as per material available on record. In the last week of December, 2014, the petitioner received a notice dated 24 December, 2014 from the office of the ITO, Ward 12 (1), Calcutta intimating that jurisdiction of the case was with his office and the case was re-fixed for hearing on 6 January, 2015 which was the last opportunity for the petitioner to represent his case.
(3.) By a letter dated 5 January, 2014, the petitioner informed the ITO Ward 12(1) that no notice had been received by it under Section 148 of the IT Act at its registered office at 11/1 Sunny Park, 3rd Floor, Calcutta 700019.;