RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 16th Jan., 2003 [reported as Yakub Ali Gopal Singh and Party v. Dy. CIT and Anr. (2003) 180 CTR (Raj) 104 - -Ed.]. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: The controversy involved in this case is very narrow as the assessee has raised the grievance that the case has been reopened without giving the assessee the copy of reasons for reopening. Without contesting the case, Shri Bhandawat, learned Counsel appearing the Revenue, has made a submission that the Revenue will supply the reasons for reopening to the petitioner and limitation for filing the return shall apply from the date of supplying the reasons. In view of the statement made by Shri Bhandawat, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of finally with the direction that the assessee may appear before the assessing authority, Bikaner by or on 23rd Jan., 2003 and the assessing authority is requested to supply him the reasons for reopening and the assessee shall have a right to file the return reckoning the period of limitation. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for reassessment of the income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995 -96. The impugned notice under challenge had been issued on 7th of June, 2001 that is to say after expiry of 4 years from the end of the asst. yr. 1995 -96 in relation to which the reassessment was sought to be made.
(3.) THE notice dt. 27th June, 2001 was a second notice issued under Section 148 by the respondent. The brief facts leading to issuance of the second notice be noticed. The assessee had submitted his return for the asst. yr. 1995 -96. The AO acting under Section 143(1) made certain adjustments in the return submitted by the assessee and raised additional demand by making enhancement in the returned income. No notice under Section 143(2) was served on the assessee within 12 months from this date of filing of the return. But assessee against the intimation had preferred application under Section 154 as per the remedy provided against such intimation made by the assessee without notice to him. Intimation about the reduced refund as claimed by the assessee had been sent to him in terms of Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 after making certain adjustments in the return submitted by the assessee by disallowing certain claims of the assessee. Since the amount of refund was less than Rs. 1 lakh the assessee's case did not come within the province of review of the regular scheme for making assessment under Section 143(3). However, the assessee resorted to Section 154 by moving an application for rectification of the intimation reducing the refund claimed by the assessee. The application moved by the assessee under Section 154 was allowed and the adjustment made by the AO were deleted and the assessment was restored to returned income. However, since the notice under Section 143(2) for regular assessment under Section 143(3), was sent within time prescribed, notice under Section 148 was issued in the first instance on 14th May, 1997 relying on circular issued by the CBDT and regular assessment was made. The assessment order framed in pursuance to the said notice was annulled by the CIT(A) on 5th June, 2000. The order of CIT(A) was subjected to appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. While the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 5th June, 2000 was pending before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 resorted once again to issue the impugned notice dt. 7th June, 2001 under Section 147/148 of the IT Act as a protective measure in case the order of the CIT(A) is sustained by the Tribunal which the Tribunal ultimately did sustain vide order dt. 2nd Feb., 2005 passed during the pendency of this appeal. A copy of which has been submitted in appeal. Be that as it may, the validity of those proceedings are not before us.;