Delhi High Court
Aerens Infrastructure And Technology ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)192CTR(DEL)542, [2004]271ITR15(DELHI)
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The block assessment Under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was made on March 31, 2004. The assessed, who is the petitioner herein, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the same is pending. In fact, hearings are in progress.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the issuance of a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of the powers Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with regard to the same block assessment order dated March 31, 2004. The petitioner relies upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai [2002] 256 ITR 440 to show that the show cause notice itself would be without jurisdiction. We feel that the decision of the Madras High Court would not be of any help to the petitioner. In the said decision, the revision had been held to be invalid as the subject-matter of the revision was the same as that of the pending appeal. Therefore, it does not hold that in all cases, and, particularly where the issues in the revision are different from those in the appeal, proceedings Under Section 263 would be invalid during the pendency of an appeal. Mr. Bajpai, who appears for the petitioner, submits that apart from the Madras High Court decision he also relies on other grounds. All these grounds are available to him and he can incorporate the same in his reply to the impugned show cause notice. The Commissioner, after taking notice of the objections, shall pass an order in accordance with law. Our interference at this stage is not called for. The writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.