Delayed Service of I-T Notice Affects Assessment Proceedings: HC
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court held that the delayed statutory notification under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act went to the root of the matter and vitiated the assessment proceedings. The panel, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao, was dealing with the objections filed by Anupama Chand and other assessors. The matter came to light from a search conducted by the IT department on August 4, 2000, at the premises of Urvasi Enterprises, Urvasi Builders, Sheeshmahal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and The Commercial and Industrial Finance (P) Ltd. In the investigation carried out by, it was claimed that although no search was carried out against those who made evaluations, proceedings were initiated against them due to the materials seized during the search and the evaluators were required to submit block declarations for the period from 1991-92 to the date of search. It was submitted that in January 2001, block returns were filed and undisclosed income was declared to be nil, but thereafter the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 143(2) on January 29, 2002 and completed block assessments which identified undisclosed income and raised tax claims. The petitioners’ case was that though notices under Section 143(2) were issued within the stipulated time, they were served on the assessees beyond the statutory limitation, thereby vitiating the presumption of jurisdiction and the assessment proceedings. The court observed that Section 143(2) empowers the Assessing Officer to examine a declaration, but the provision provides that the declaration must be served on the assessee within twelve months from the end of the month in which the declaration is filed. The panel made a distinction between issuance of notice and service of the notice, stating that notice refers to preparation and dispatch by the department, while service occurs only when the notice actually reaches the assessee. In the present case, although the notices were made within the statute of limitations, they were served beyond the statutory period. The bench accordingly set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and allowed the appeals without fee.
First-year MBBS students challenge results
Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court granted the plea of two first-year MBBS students to challenge the declared results of their first year. The petitioners allege that authorities arbitrarily declared them unsuccessful in human anatomy despite scoring more than 50 percent aggregate marks in theoretical and practical exams. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Maduri Pranathi and students of Surabhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Siddipet. The guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) stipulate that students must score at least 50 per cent of the total marks in theory and practical and also not less than 40 per cent marks in theory and practical separately for eligibility and pass, it said. The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite securing 150 marks out of 300 and crossing the established 50 percent threshold, the petitioners were declared unsuccessful. It was also alleged that participants had incorrectly applied the criteria and failed to interpret NMC regulations fairly and reasonably. The petitioner requested that they immediately He sought an order that they should be promoted to Year MBBS and allowed to attend classes and appear for exams without any interruption. The judge ordered the defendants to seek instructions and sent the matter for further hearing.
BHEL challenges lake beautification
Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court inconclusively heard a writ petition regarding development works at Rayasamudram lake in Ramachandrapuram mandal in Sangareddy district. The writ petition was filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, questioning the action of the municipal authorities in undertaking beautification, development and alteration activities in the lake and its full tank level and buffer zone, arguing that the lake constitutes part of its assets. The petitioner argued that the land belonged to him and the government had no right to interfere with it. During the hearing, the judge observed that the nearly 120-acre Rayasamudram lake constitutes the financial resource of the society and questioned whether an acquired water body could be considered private property. The judge also asked whether the fact that employees working in the area had access to such a lake and consequently benefited from the water source made it a community resource. The petitioner expressed concern that private entities may carry out work that may later become irreversible and requested to maintain the status quo. Observing that such irreversible work would take more time, the judge directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and published the matter after two weeks.
