S.K.Keshote, J. - (1.) A request has been made on behalf of the appellant in these matters that Shri N.M. Ranka, senior advocate, is not available and thus, the hearing thereof may be deferred.
(2.) WE do not find any justification in this prayer made for deferment of hearing of these appeals. There are other advocates on behalf of the appellants as appears from the title of the special appeals. As per the title, Sarva Shri J.K. Ranka, Sanjeev Kumar Singhal, R.K. Yadav, Sunil Jain, Naresh Kumar Gupta and Vijay Choudhary are the advocates for the appellant and where Shri N.M. Ranka, senior advocate, is not available, either of these advocates should have come prepared to make submissions or the appellant should have made alternative arrangements for argument of the matters. Accordingly, this request made for adjournment of the matters is declined. Since all the matters are similar for the decision of these special appeals, which arise out of the common judgment of the learned single Judge [reported as Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 188 CTR (Raj) 461--Ed.], the facts are taken from D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 138 of 2003. In the writ petitions, out of which these special appeals arise, challenge was made by the appellant, a private limited company, to the notice dt. 8th Jan., 2002, issued to it by the respondent No. 1, the Asstt. CIT, Circle-I, Jaipur under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act, 1961'). The appellant-assessee was called upon to furnish a return within 20 days from the date of service thereof so as to reassess the income within the meaning of s. 147 of the Act, 1961. This notice is there on the record of the writ petition as Annex. 1. This notice contained an endorsement/note that it is being issued after obtaining the necessary sanction of the Addl. CIT, R- 1, Jaipur/the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The validity of this notice is assailed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction, illegal, inoperative, invalid and ineffective in the law.
(3.) ANOTHER ground raised to challenge this notice that it is bad on account of non-sanction as required under s. 151 of the Act, 1961. After receipt of the notice of the writ petition, it is true that the Department did not file reply thereto, but raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in writing. It is not in dispute that in response to the notice dt. 8th Jan., 2002 (Annex.-1), the appellant made a representation dt. 13th Jan., 2002 (Annex-2), which is pending for decision before the AO. ;