Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 2606, 2422 and 2579 of 2016 as learned counsel for the petitioner(s) is agreed that the issues involved in all these petitions are identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 2606 of 2016.
(2.) In CWP No. 2606 of 2016, the petitioner prays for quashing the notice dated 25.3.2015, Annexure P.8 issued by the respondent under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). Further prayer has been made to quash the ex parte order dated 30.11.2015, Annexure P.17 rejecting all the objections of the petitioner with regard to lack of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sec. 148 of the Act and the order of assessment dated 16.12.2015, Annexure P.38, raising demand of Rs. 7,72,96,617/ - under Sec. 156 of the Act.
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No. 2606 of 2016 may be noticed. The petitioner was employed in Delhi Police as ASI till 31.7.2014 and had been drawing salary from Delhi police. For the assessment year 2011 -12, the petitioner filed his return of income on 5.3.2013 which was later revised on 6.3.2013 to include the interest income which had inadvertently not been included in the original return. Letters dated 25.2.2013 and 14.3.2013 were issued by Income Tax Officer (Int.) Gurgaon to the petitioner. The petitioner through his counsel furnished the requisite information. It was also intimated by the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 16,10,57,231/ - was received on sale of agricultural land. The respondent issued notice under Sec. 148 of the Act dated 25.3.2015 to the petitioner alleging that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2011 -12 followed by another notice dated 16.4.2015. The petitioner objected to the notice and sought reasons. The respondent called the counsel for the petitioner and on 3.6.2015 gave him a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. Similarly, another notice under Sec. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner to which he also objected. The respondent sent reply to the assessee's letter stating that he had jurisdiction to make reassessment. Another letter dated 23.11.2015 was issued to the petitioner proposing to add Rs. 15,61,76,676/ - as income chargeable to tax for which details, records and documents were not made available to the petitioner. The petitioner sent another letter dated 30.11.2015 questioning the jurisdiction of the ITO and time to file objections was also sought. The respondent rejected all the pleas of the petitioner by its ex parte order dated 30.11.2015 holding that he had jurisdiction over the petitioner because of his residential address being of Gurgaon and the property sold was in Manesar. The respondent also issued notice dated 1.12.2015 alleging non compliance of notices issued earlier and threatening action for prosecution of the petitioner under Sec. 276D of the Act. Another notice dated 4.12.2015 under Sec. 142(1) of the Act was also issued by him to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the letter dated 30.11.2015 and summons under Sec. 131 of the Act objecting to the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent. Without going through the letters sent by the petitioner, the respondent asked the petitioner to furnish details of assets and liabilities. After a lot of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent authorities, ex parte order of assessment under Ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 16.12.2015, Annexure P.38 was passed. The petitioner filed CWP No. 26965 of 2015 in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.2.2016 with permission to file fresh one to enable the petitioner to place on record certain documents. Hence the instant writ petitions by the three petitioner -assessees.;