Liability to pay tax, which is founded on the charging provisions of the statute, is not to be nullified on unjustified pleas taken by the assessee

Court :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Brief :
The observation of the case is giving rise to the aforesaid substantial question of law are these. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners namely Manoj Gupta and his wife Shallu Gupta. It filed a return of income on 02.12.2003 for the assessment year 2003-04 for which the previous year ended on 31.03.2003. The income declared in the return was `7,83,554/-. The return was processed on 01.03.2004 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently it was taken up for scrutiny and accordingly a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 30.12.2004. Since the dispute centres around the service of this notice upon the assessee, we shall for the present keep aside the question whether it was served upon the assessee. Suffice to note that pursuant to notice issued on 12.09.2005 under Section 142(1) and several notices issued thereafter, the assessee actively participated in the assessment proceedings and partly furnished the details, documents and information called for by the Assessing Officer. The relevant dates of hearing and the remarks, datewise, as to what happened on those hearings have been re-produced in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer observed therefrom that the case was posted for hearing seventeen times and only on seven times details were furnished, that too partly and on the rest of the occasions nobody attended the hearing or filed any details. 4. The assessment proceedings ultimately resulted in an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Act on 31.03.2006.

Citation :
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus VISION INC.... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocates.