- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-assessee - M/s. Dhadda Exports, Jaipur, which is a partnership firm, challenging notice dated 27.03.2014 issued to it under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and order dated 15.01.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur, by which its objections filed there against were rejected. Petitioner-assessee filed its return for assessment year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring income of Rs. 1,86,790/- and paid the due tax thereon as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the IT Act'). Aforesaid return filed by petitioner-assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were issued on 26.09.2008. The Income Tax Officer, after detailed scrutiny and verification, passed an order dated 06.11.2009 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. Petitioner-assessee challenged aforesaid order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur-I, Jaipur, who allowed the same in part after making trading addition of Rs. 21,28,203/- made by Income-tax Officer and disallowed the prior period expense of Rs. 31,712/-, which was of two entries; first was of legal expenses of Rs. 11,550/- and second was of interest charges of Rs. 20,162/-. Thus, total income was assessed at Rs. 23,46,710/-. Direction was given to issue demand notice and challan. The Income Tax Officer was also directed to recalculate the consequential interest. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 - Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur, issued notice under Section 148 of the IT Act to petitioner-assessee on 27.03.2014 proposing to assess/reassess income for assessment year 2007-08. Petitioner-assessee submitted reply to said notice on 12.04.2014 to the respondent No. 1 ITO followed by reminder dated 09.09.2014, 13.10.2014, 10.11.2014 and 09.12.2014. Therein the petitioner-assessee demanded copy of reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act. The respondent No. 2 ITO, vide letter dated 16.12.2014, provided copy of reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings to petitioner-assessee, who, thereafter, submitted an application on 18.12.2014 under Right to Information Act requesting to provide copy of sanction-note received under Section 151 of the IT Act before issuing notice under Section 148. Petitioner-assessee then submitted detailed objection on 02.01.2015 pointing out various infirmities and illegalities in issuing impugned notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, recording reasons and obtaining sanction. Respondent No. 2 ITO, vide letter dated 02.01.2015, provided copy of sanction obtained from Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Jaipur, vide letter dated 27.03.2014. Petitioner-assessee submitted objection against notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, which has been rejected by impugned order dated 15.01.2015.
(2.) Shri Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-assessee, submitted that there was no failure on the part of petitioner-assessee to disclose fully and truly all material, primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment for assessment year 2007-08. There was no valid reason to believe with the respondents that any income chargeable to Tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. Reasons have been supplied to petitioner-assessee after 31.03.2014, which is beyond limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b). Entire process has thus been rendered invalid as held by Delhi High Court in Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Co. v. CIT, 2009 308 ITR 38.
(3.) Learned counsel submitted that notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act was to be preceded by a sanction duly obtained from Chief Commissioner/Commissioner of Income-tax as per provisions of Section 151(1) of the IT Act, whereas, in present case, such sanction has been obtained from Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. Entire proceedings thus stood vitiated for want of competence. Learned counsel in support of this argument has relied on judgments in Reliable Fin hold Ltd. v. Union of India, 2014 369 ITR 419, CIT v. H.M. Constructions, 2014 366 ITR 277, Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT, 2006 285 ITR 158, and East India Hotels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, 1993 204 ITR 435.;