High Court Of Allahabad
Hardeva vs. DCIT (Assessment)
Sections 148, Art. 226
Asst. Year 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91
R.K. Gulati & M.C. Agarwal, JJ.
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 83 of 1998
12th February, 1998
BY THE COURT :
This writ petition is directed against the notices under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1990-91, copies whereof are contained in Annexures “7-A” to “7-E” filed with the writ petition. The notices were issued as far back as on 11th July, 1996. The issuance of these notices was impugned before this Court by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 435 of 1996, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dt. 1st July, 1996. There two contentions were raised by the petitioner, namely, that the notices issued under s. 148 were invalid and, secondly, the petitioner had not been supplied the reasons in pursuance of which the notices under s. 148 were issued. Both these contentions were repelled by the Court and the writ petition was dismissed. It appears, that the petitioners thereafter participated in the assessment proceedings. In paragraph 26 of the present writ petition it is, however, averred that the hearing in pursuance of the notices under section 148 has already been concluded and the assessment orders, if any, are awaited. On these facts the petitioner has chosen to institute this writ petition. The grounds for assailing the notices under s. 148 are the same which were urged in the earlier writ petition though put in different form.
2. We have considered the submissions urged before us on behalf of the petitioner. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled in law to institute a second writ petition on the same grounds on which the impugned notices were earlier assailed before this Court. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision rendered in the earlier writ petition, the remedy of the petitioner lay to approach the higher Court ; this Court cannot sit in judgment over the earlier decision that was given by a Division Bench of this Court. The contention that the amount of interest received by the petitioner on the enhanced compensation cannot be split and assessed in the assessment years in dispute can as well be canvassed before the higher authority constituted under the Act, if any assessment order is passed and the petitioner feels dissatisfied with it. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.
[Citation:230 ITR 875]